Municipality of San Juan v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

The federal district court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed the Municipality of San Juan’s claims asserting that fossil fuel industry defendants concealed the relationship between their products and “catastrophic weather phenomena” such as the 2017 hurricanes that caused substantial damage to San Juan. The court rejected San Juan’s efforts to distinguish its case from the <a href="https://www.climatecasechart.com/collections/municipality-of-bayamon-v-exxon-mobil-corp_a564">case</a> brought by other Puerto Rico municipalities, which a sister court in the District of Puerto Rico dismissed on September 11, 2025. The court said that San Juan’s contention that the decision in the other case relied on the absence of further proof that could be obtained in discovery was contradicted by San Juan’s arguments opposing further discovery in its objections to a magistrate judge’s July 2025 report and recommendations. The district court also found that San Juan raised no new arguments to counter the court’s conclusion in the other case that Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, antitrust, and Puerto Rico law claims should be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds against the defendants over whom the court had jurisdiction.

In the Municipality of San Juan’s climate change lawsuit against oil industry defendants, the federal district court for the District of Puerto Rico found that San Juan’s counsel committed attorney misconduct by failing to respond to defense counsel’s communications regarding a briefing schedule and by failing to timely oppose motions or to request an extension of time, and also by plagiarizing from the complaint, briefs, and other filings made by different and unrelated counsel in a lawsuit filed by other Puerto Rican municipalities. The court found that the attorney “lifted not only the entire theory of San Juan’s case from the Municipalities’ Case but went so far to use virtually the very same words and ideas, usurping the thought processes and legal theories a client hires an attorney to develop and perform.” The court found that the plagiarism violated both the attorney’s duty of competence to his client and also his duty of candor to the court. The court ordered the attorney to show cause why he should not be sanctioned $7,000 for untimely filings and lack of diligence in the management of case deadlines. The court said it would issue a separate order to address the plagiarism issue because a monetary sanction “would be insufficient to address the seriousness of the circumstances.”

The Municipality of San Juan, Puerto Rico filed a lawsuit against fossil fuel industry defendants in federal district court in Puerto Rico. The complaint, which was similar to the <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/municipalities-of-puerto-rico-v-exxon-mobil-corp/">complaint</a> filed by multiple Puerto Rico municipalities in 2022, alleged that the defendants’ “production, promotion, refining[,] marketing, and sale of fossil fuel-based consumer product” played a primary role in causing “losses, deaths and destruction of property result the catastrophic storms of September 2017 and their aftermath” and for other losses and economic damage resulting from climate change. The complaint asserted 14 causes of action, including common law consumer fraud, conspiracy to commit common law consumer fraud and deceptive business practices, violation of Puerto Rico’s statute prohibiting false or misleading advertisements and practices, violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, violation of federal antitrust law, public and private nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn and design defect, negligent design defect, and restitution/unjust enrichment. San Juan seeks punitive and compensatory damages.