Delaware v. BP America Inc.

The clerk of the federal district court in Delaware took action to return Delaware’s case to Delaware Superior Court.

The federal district court for the District of Delaware granted fossil fuel industry defendants’ motion to stay execution of the court’s January 5 order remanding the State of Delaware’s climate change case to state court. The court stayed the remand order until the Third Circuit issues its ruling on the defendants’ appeal. The court agreed with the defendants that removal jurisdiction issues for climate change-related state law claims left “reasonable room for disagreement” and noted that each of the defendants’ removal grounds raised an issue of first impression for the Third Circuit. The court therefore found the defendants had made “the necessary showing of a likelihood of success on the merits.” The court also found that the defendants demonstrated they would likely suffer irreparable harm because “there may be no practical way to ‘un-ring the bell’ of the state court’s intervening rulings if the Third Circuit ultimately determines that the case should proceed in federal court.” In addition, the court found that a stay pending appeal would not substantially harm Delaware and would serve the public interests of judicial economy and conservation of public resources.

–

Delaware filed its opposition to the stay motion on January 25, 2022, arguing that the defendants’ chance of success on appeal was “negligible at best” and that the defendants did not face irreparable harm in the absence of a stay, while potential harm to Delaware and the public interest weighed “decisively” in favor of denying a stay.

Fossil fuel industry defendants appealed the remand order in Delaware’s case to the Third Circuit and also filed a motion in the district court to stay execution of the remand order pending appeal.

–

–

The federal district court for the District of Delaware granted the State of Delaware’s motion to remand its climate change lawsuit against fossil fuel industry defendants to state court. The court characterized Delaware’s case as alleging that the defendants’ “disinformation campaign” about global warming’s existence, causes, and effects caused the State to suffer from the impacts of global warming. The district court found that Delaware’s complaint asserted only state law claims; that the defendants failed to show complete preemption (and had, in effect, waived the complete preemption argument); and that federal common law, even if implicated in Delaware’s claims, did not provide a basis for removal. The district court also found that the defendants failed to establish a basis for Grable jurisdiction because Delaware’s claims did not “necessarily raise” the federal issues identified by the defendants related to federal energy policy, federal foreign affairs power, and First Amendment rights. With respect to federal-officer removal jurisdiction, the court found that the plaintiffs had disclaimed certain claims upon which such jurisdiction might be based, that other activities cited by the defendants as the basis for such jurisdiction predated the alleged misconduct, and that defendants’ operations under the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease program did not meet the requirement that the defendants were “acting under” federal officers. The court also found that the defendants did not establish that there was jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act in the absence of a showing that their OCS operations were a but-for cause of Delaware’s alleged injuries. The court found that the companies waived their removal arguments based on federal enclave jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act (in addition to the complete preemption argument).

On the same day that the court issued its decision granting Delaware's remand motion, the defendants filed an emergency motion for a temporary stay of the remand order.

–

–

–

–

On April 13, 2021, the defendants wrote to inform the court of the Second Circuit’s decision affirming dismissal of New York City’s climate change case against fossil fuel companies.

–

–

–

–