(Article from Climate Change Alert, February 2025)
Still more climate change cases are in the preliminary stages prior to motion to dismiss briefing. Additional cases of note include:
Town of Carrboro, North Carolina v. Duke Energy Corp., No. 24CV003385-670 (N.C. Super. Ct.)
On December 4, 2024, the Town Carrboro filed suit against Duke Energy Corporation seeking compensation for the damages that it has incurred, and will incur in the future, as the proximate result of Defendant’s deception campaign concerning the causes and dangers posed by the climate crisis.
The Town sought relief under theories of public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, including gross negligence, to which it seeks damages and attorney’s fees.
Due to the recent nature of this matter, there have been no further developments. This case will be interesting to track in 2025 because it is one of the few suits that allege liability against a singular and local entity, as opposed to multiple defendants. We anticipate this suit will test novel theories of alleged harm.
County of Multnomah v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 23CV25164 (Or. Cir. Ct., Multnomah Cnty.)
On June 22, 2023, Plaintiff, Multnomah County filed a lawsuit seeking relief under theories of public nuisance, negligence, fraud and deceit, and trespass. In addition to the fossil fuel and industry trade associations named in similar suits, Plaintiff also filed claims against McKinsey & Company and Western States Petroleum Association as well. This case may foreshadow a trend of climate change cases broadening their reach to allege claims against a wider range of defendants. Motion to Dismiss briefing as well as the anti-SLAPP motions are anticipated.
Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 2:24-cv-158 (W.D. Wash.) and Makah Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 2:24-cv-157 (W.D. Wash.)
On December 20, 2023, the Makha and Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribes filed nearly identical Complaints in the Washington Superior Court against Exxon Mobil Corp., BP, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and related entities. The Complaints seek relief under public nuisance, products liability, and failure to warn, alleging that Defendants’ fossil fuel activities have significantly contributed to environmental degradation affecting their lands, traditions, and way of life, which subsequently endangered their communities’ future.
On February 6, 2024, Defendants moved to remove the case to the Western District of Washington, to which the Court granted. Thereafter, Plaintiffs’ filed Motions to Remand the matter back to the Washington Superior Court. As of June 10, 2024, the Plaintiffs’ Motions to Remand were fully briefed.
Although it is still early, we anticipate that these suits may raise novel legal questions under federal Indian law jurisprudence. The preemption, Commerce Clause, and separation of powers arguments raised in other climate change suits may be more challenging (or invalid altogether) to raise against tribal plaintiffs.