In re Fuel Industry Climate Cases (County of San Mateo v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.)

In climate change-based tort lawsuits brought by California municipalities, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order granting Citgo Petroleum Corporation’s (Citgo’) motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in concluding that the municipalities’ claims did not arise from or relate to Citgo’s California contacts. The court found that the municipalities demonstrated that Citgo purchased, distributed, and sold fossil fuel products to California consumers via contractual arrangements with other companies, that Citgo promoted the products as Citgo gasoline, and that Citgo “did not include any materials identifying climate-related risks associated with utilizing gasoline.” The appellate court found that “[b]ecause the complaint clearly encompasses claims based upon a duty to warn and asserts that Citgo failed to do so,” the plaintiffs met their burden to demonstrate a connection between Citgo’s California contacts and their claims. The court therefore concluded that specific jurisdiction over Citgo was appropriate. The court also found that Citgo failed to demonstrate that exercise of jurisdiction was unreasonable.