The Ninth Circuit also affirmed, for a second time, a district order remanding to state court climate lawsuits brought by California local governments against fossil fuel companies. The Ninth Circuit previously affirmed the remand order in 2020 but only reviewed the propriety of removal under the federal-officer removal statute. After the Supreme Court ruled in the Baltimore case that the scope of appellate review included all grounds for removal when one of the grounds is federal-officer removal, the Ninth Circuit in this second decision reviewed the fossil fuel companies’ other bases for removal and rejected their “broad interpretations of removal jurisdiction,” even in a case where the plaintiffs “raise novel and sweeping causes of action.” First, the Ninth Circuit applied the same analysis that it used in <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2020/20200526_docket-18-16663_opinion.pdf">City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c.</a> and found that the companies did not establish prerequisites for the Grable exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule for cases that raise a substantial federal issue. Second, the Ninth Circuit held, as it had in City of Oakland, that the Clean Air Act did not completely preempt the plaintiffs’ state-law claims. Third, the Ninth Circuit concluded the connection between the defendants’ conduct on federal enclaves (such as a naval petroleum reserve and naval installations) and the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries was “too attenuated and remote” to be governed by federal law applicable to federal enclaves. Fourth, the Ninth Circuit rejected the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) as a basis for jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit noted that other circuit courts, including the Fourth Circuit (see the Baltimore opinion above), required “only a ‘but-for’ connection between operations on the outer Continental Shelf and a plaintiff’s alleged injuries,” but the Ninth Circuit concluded that jurisdiction under OCSLA was governed by a limiting principle consistent with federal enclave jurisdiction and required that claims “arise from actions or injuries occurring on the outer Continental Shelf.” The Ninth Circuit found that the connections between the defendant companies’ operations on the outer Continental Shelf and the plaintiffs’ claims was “too attenuated” to provide a basis for jurisdiction. Fifth, the Ninth Circuit found that the companies did not establish that they were “acting under” a federal officer in connection with three agreements with the federal government and therefore did not satisfy requirements for removal under the federal-officer removal statute. Sixth, the Ninth Circuit found that bankruptcy jurisdiction did not apply because there was not a “close nexus” between the plaintiffs’ complaints and the coal company Peabody Energy’s bankruptcy or Texaco, Inc.’s bankruptcy. Seventh, the Ninth Circuit held that admiralty jurisdiction did not provide a basis for removal because pursuant to the “saving to suitors” clause of the admiralty jurisdiction statute, maritime claims brought in state court require an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Action by California counties and cities seeking damages and other relief from fossil fuel companies for sea level rise. 

County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.

<p>This entry was provided by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Please see the terms of use for citation and licensing of third party data.</p>

Ninth Circuit Said California Localities’ Climate Cases Should Return to State Court

Filed

United States of America

California

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

An aim to achieve a quantifiable outcome within a given time-frame, set by an institution such as a national government.

Policy instruments are techniques or tools used by governing authorities to promote certain policies in order to achieve predetermined goals. Put simply, instruments are how a government tries to achieve its goals, with this taxonomy being focused on national policy instruments.

Risk is the potential for adverse consequences resulting from the dynamic interplay between (climate-related) hazards, exposure, and vulnerability of affected human or ecological systems.

Groups  of people who are adversely affected by climate change or the response to it

A set of principles, processes, and practices that build economic and political power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy.

Justice is the ethical and political framework that addresses fairness, including issues of responsibility, rights, and structural inequity.

Renewable energy means all forms of energy produced from renewable sources in a sustainable manner.

Fossil fuel is a generic term for non-renewable energy sources such as coal, fossil gas, and oil (including crude oil, and petroleum products), that can be used for electricity and heat generation. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons formed from pressurised and heated organic material buried over millions of years.

Molecules in the atmosphere that play a key role in the greenhouse effect by trapping heat radiating from Earth’s surface.

Area of the economy in which actors engage in identical or related activities.

In human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate change and its effects, in order to moderate harm, increase resilience or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual climate change and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate change and its effects.

The management and allocation of funds, assets and investments to meet various objectives