Publications

(Article from Climate Change Alert, February 2025)

The following climate change cases are currently pending at the motion to dismiss stage. The fossil fuel Defendants raise related arguments in these cases, including that the claims: (1) are preempted by the Clean Air Act, which Defendants argue should exclusively control claims related to air pollution; (2) impair the federal foreign affairs power, which provides that state law claims must give way if they impair the effective exercise of the Nation’s foreign policy; (3) violate the separation of powers doctrine because a state court’s judgment on the legality of production and extraction of fossil fuels is beyond the role of the courts; (4) violate the Commerce Clause because common law environment tort claims are imposing liability for greenhouse gas emissions are tantamount to state regulation, which would have the practical effect of controlling conduct outside of state boundaries; (5) raise non-justiciable political questions involving vital questions of public policy; (6) are barred by the applicable statute of limitations relating to any purported misrepresentations; and (7) are barred by the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) because the claims arise from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest. 

• Anne Arundel County v. BP, C-02-CV-21-000565 (Md. Cir. Ct.). The City and County of Anne Arundel (located in Maryland) seeks relief under theories of public and private nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, negligence, trespass, and Maryland-specific consumer protection statutes. As of October 25, 2024, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss were fully briefed and under submission in the Maryland Circuit Court. Notably, earlier briefing in the case found sufficient contacts with Maryland to satisfy personal jurisdiction, and dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.
• Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute, 62-CV-3837 (Minn. Dist. Ct.). The State of Minnesota seeks relief under theories of consumer fraud, products liability, and deceptive trade practices. As of November 20, 2024, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss were fully briefed and under submission in the Minnesota District Court.
• Connecticut v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. HHD-CV20-6132568-S (Conn. Super. Ct.). The State of Connecticut seeks relief under theories of fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices, in violation of Connecticut-specific consumer protection statutes. Specifically, Connecticut argues that ExxonMobil’s commercial speech on climate denial and its corresponding skepticism constitutes deceptive trade practices, including ExxonMobil’s statements as to greenwashing. Motion to Dismiss briefing is currently underway.
• District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 2020 CA 002892 (D.C. Super. Ct.). The District of Columbia seeks relief under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Upon the filing of the Complaint, Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting various theories of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. In November 2022 the District Court for the District of Columbia remanded the case back to the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. As of April 22, 2024, the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss were fully briefed.
• Platkin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., MER-L-001797-22 (N.J. Super. Ct., Somerset Cnty.). The State of New Jersey seeks recovery under theories of public and private nuisance, products liability, and New Jersey-specific consumer protection statutes. Briefing on the Motions to Dismiss is still underway, with the Parties filing supplemental authority in support of their respective Motions to Dismiss. Consolidation motions are pending to combine this case with similar complaints filed by the City of Hoboken, Mercer County and Hudson County.
• Bucks County v. BP p.l.c., 2024-01836-0000 (Penn. Ct. C.P.). Bucks County (located in Pennsylvania) seeks relief under theories of strict products lability, negligent products liability for failure to warn, public and private nuisance, trespass, and civil conspiracy. As of December 5, 2024, the briefing on Defendants’ Joint Preliminary Objections to the Complaint had been completed.
• Municipality of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 3:23-cv-01608 (D.P.R.). The Municipality of San Juan, Puerto Rico seeks relief in federal court under theories of fraud, deceptive and unfair business practices, RICO, antitrust violations, products liability, private nuisance and unjust enrichment. Motion to Dismiss briefing is currently underway, with Defendants filing both joint and individual Motions to Dismiss. Additionally, a consolidation motion is pending to combine this case with a similar complaint filed by the Municipalities of Bayamón, Puerto Rico.
• State of Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Company, et al., 1:18-cv-395. The State of Rhode Island seeks relief under theories of public and private nuisance, products liability, trespass, impairment of public trust resources, and equitable relief under Rhode Island’s Environmental Rights Act. After the state court denied Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss in regard to both jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, Defendants sought certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, to which the Supreme Court denied on April 24, 2023. Thereafter, Plaintiff renewed its request for discovery on Defendants’ fossil-fuel business activity in Rhode Island, which the state court granted. Jurisdictional discovery is currently underway.