Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp.

–

A Rhode Island Superior Court denied a motion by Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (together, Chevron) to strike certain jurisdictional allegations from the State of Rhode Island’s complaint in its lawsuit to hold Chevron and other fossil fuel defendants liable for their contributions to climate change harms to the State. Chevron characterized as “baseless” the State’s allegations that Chevron “extracted,” “refined,” “and/or” “manufactured” a “substantial portion of” Chevron’s fossil fuel products in Rhode Island and that Rhode Island “consume[s]” a “substantial portion” of Chevron’s products. The court found that the State “had a good faith basis” for the allegations. The court also rejected Chevron’s contentions that the use of “and/or” in the allegations was improper and that the allegations constituted improper shotgun or group pleading. The court also denied both Chevron’s and the State’s requests that it impose sanctions.

–

–

–

On June 7, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to clarify and strike portions of the court’s decision. The defendants contended that clarification of the scope of discovery was needed because Rhode Island had indicated that it interpreted the decision to authorize “sweeping” or “de facto full-merits” discovery that would include activities and conduct outside Rhode Island borders. The motion also requested that the court strike references in its decision to matters outside the record from the decision, including two news articles and “statements regarding un-briefed and un-proven disputed factual issues.”

The Rhode Island Superior Court granted the State of Rhode Island’s motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery in the State’s lawsuit seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for climate change’s impacts on Rhode Island’s infrastructure and coastal communities. The companies have moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction on the grounds that they have insufficient contacts with the State. The companies also contend that there are no facts in dispute as to jurisdiction. The court noted that jurisdictional discovery should not be allowed when allegations of minimum contacts, even if true, would not be sufficient but found that in this case there was a sufficient alleged connection between the companies’ activities and Rhode Island’s injuries. The court was not persuaded that limited jurisdictional discovery would be burdensome to the defendants. The court described Rhode Island as “similarly situated” to small countries in other parts of the world that had presented at the most recent United Nations climate conference “that oil companies have benefitted billions in corporate profits at the expense of [small countries’] climate-related disasters that have caused severe destruction.” The court said attendees at the climate conference “were left with a similar question this Court might ultimately have to oversee: who pays for the damage and loss this State has had to incur from climate change effects?” The court stated that it saw “no compelling argument that would prevent Plaintiff from engaging in limited jurisdictional discovery, which, if fruitful, could help address the very question those small nations … faced.” The court limited discovery to the following issues: (1) defendants’ fossil-fuel business activity in Rhode Island during the times set forth in Rhode Island’s complaint; (2) defendants’ marketing and promotion of fossil-fuel products to Rhode Island consumers during the same time period; and (3) defendants’ historical knowledge of climate change impacts in the State of Rhode Island during that time period.

On August 13, 2020, the state trial court in Rhode Island delayed further consideration of the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction until the U.S. Supreme Court and the Rhode Island Supreme Court decide pending cases that concern similar personal jurisdiction issues. In this case, the defendants argue that Rhode Island has not demonstrated that its alleged injuries arise out of the defendants’ limited contacts with Rhode Island; they contend that expansion of specific jurisdiction for climate change claims would violate due process and interfere with the defendants’ home jurisdictions’ power. The cases that the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to consider in its next term concern specific jurisdiction in wrongful death and products liability cases against auto manufacturers in Minnesota and Montana; the high courts of those states found personal jurisdiction in both cases. The case in the Rhode Island Supreme Court is an appeal of a trial court finding of no specific personal jurisdiction over defendants who designed and manufactured the truck and tire involved in a wrongful death action. The Rhode Island trial court also delayed consideration of Rhode Island’s motion to compel jurisdictional discovery and stated that it would not consider the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim until it determined that the parties were properly before the court.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–