The Environmental Law Monitor (ELM) blog by Goldberg Segalla has covered several lawsuits filed over the past several years against major fossil fuel companies by plaintiffs seeking damages due to climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The claims in these lawsuits have been based on not only common law principles such as public nuisance, but also state laws, including California’s consumer protection laws.
While these lawsuits have had slight differences, one common theme running through them is the defense raised by the oil companies that state courts, like California’s, lack jurisdiction over the oil companies with these lawsuits since worldwide greenhouse emissions are not related to conduct in any one state. The oil companies have repeatedly argued it would be unreasonable for state courts to retain jurisdiction over them.
A Different Ruling
The common defense by the oil companies has been rejected by at least one California state court judge. Superior Court Judge Ethan P. Schulman issued a ruling on Oct. 3 that San Francisco Superior Court does have jurisdiction over the oil companies (and anyone else named in the lawsuits), including the American Petroleum Institute.
Specifically, Judge Schulman ruled that the “claims arising out of, or are related to, Defendants’ extensive contacts with California, their allegedly deceptive statements regarding climate change, and the alleged injuries plaintiffs suffered in California.”
According to Judge Schulman, his decision is “consistent with every other court in the country that has addressed similar climate change actions.” Judge Schulman also noted that “[e]very other court to have considered the same issues in climate change cases brought against oil and gas companies has reached the same conclusion,” indicating that this argument has generally been unsuccessful.
Judge Schulman’s ruling was made in a lawsuit, which has since been consolidated with nine others filed by California cities, wherein the plaintiffs alleged that the big oil companies have known for the past 60 years that fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide that directly affects climate change and allegedly created a deceptive marketing campaign attempting to downplay these reports from the scientific community.
The lawsuit (Fuel Industry Climate Cases, JCCP No. 5310, Case No. CJC-24-005310) filed in 2023 by the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Cruz, and others seeks to state the following causes of action under California law: public nuisance, strict liability, private nuisance, negligence, and trespass. Attorney General Rob Bonta later amended the complaint in June to seek “illegally obtained” profits from the companies under a new California consumer protection law.
In his ruling, Judge Schulman specifically rejected the defendants’ arguments that the plaintiffs’ claims were based on worldwide conduct and were therefore too attenuated to California for one of its state courts to retain jurisdiction. In this portion of his ruling, he highlighted similar rulings made in climate change lawsuits filed in Delaware, Colorado, Connecticut, and Hawaii, wherein each of these cases the individual state courts were ruled to similarly retain jurisdiction over the companies.
In citing these neighboring decisions, Judge Schulman held that, “Defendants may have engaged the same or similar conduct in other states is immaterial to the inquiry here.” If the court was to adopt the defendants’ position in this California case and dismiss this lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Schulman ruled that it would effectively shield these companies from being sued anywhere other than in the states where they are incorporated or where they maintain their principal places of business.
After denying defendants’ motions to quash the summonses and to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, Judge Schulman gave the defendant 20 days to file their responsive pleadings in the lawsuit or to file petitions for writ of mandate seeking appellate review of his order. While a writ is the likely next step, the implications for this ruling (should it stand) are potentially far reaching for lawsuits filed in other states and could curtail attempts by the oil companies to dismiss these lawsuits on jurisdictional grounds.
This article originally appeared on Goldberg Segalla.
About the Author:
Stephen L. Jenkins is a partner at Goldberg Segalla.