Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Morgan v. Ito

Geography
Year
2026
Document Type
Litigation
Part of

About this case

Filing year
2026
Status
Motion to dismiss filed.
Geography
Docket number
8:26-cv-244
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Central District of California (C.D. Cal.)United States → United States Federal Courts
Case category
Constitutional Claims (US) → Fifth Amendment (US)Constitutional Claims (US) → Fourteenth Amendment (US)
Principal law
United States → Fifth Amendment—Takings
At issue
Mineral rights owners' lawsuit asserting that California law prohibiting drilling of new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of “sensitive receptors” constituted an unconstitutional taking.
Topics
, ,  

Documents

Each case in our database can contain one or more documents.

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Search results
03/05/2026
Motion to dismiss filed.
Mineral rights owners' lawsuit asserting that California law prohibiting drilling of new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of “sensitive receptors” constituted an unconstitutional taking.
Motion To Dismiss
–
01/27/2026
Complaint filed.
A brother and sister who own rights to minerals located on and underneath two parcels in Santa Barbara County filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Central District of California asserting that a California law (SB 1137) prohibiting drilling of new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of “sensitive receptors” constituted an unconstitutional taking. Their complaint alleged that “SB 1137 is the latest apex of a long line of attacks on the use of natural resources within California to further the state government’s quest to curb anthropogenic climate change.” The complaint alleged that the law effectively prohibited productive use of the plaintiffs’ mineral estate and thereby eliminated any economically beneficial use of that estate. The complaint further alleged that the law “unfairly requires mineral estate owners to bear the burden of the State’s policy choices regarding climate change.” The plaintiffs asked the court to enjoin enforcement of SB 1137 insofar as it banned issuance of permits for the plaintiffs to drill new oil wells, redrill or deepen existing wells, or permanently alter casing of existing wells. They also requested declaratory relief and attorney fees and costs. NB: The United States filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of California challenging SB 1137 on January 14, 2026.
Complaint
–

Summary

Mineral rights owners' lawsuit asserting that California law prohibiting drilling of new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of “sensitive receptors” constituted an unconstitutional taking.

 Topics mentioned most in this case

See how often Topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document.

Group
Topics
Target
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Economic sector
Finance