Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–60291.,12–60291. |
| Citation | 718 F.3d 460 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
| Parties | Ned COMER; Brenda Comer; Eric Haygood; Brenda Haygood; Larry Hunter; Sandra L. Hunter; Mitchell Kisielewski; Johanna Kisielewski; Rosemary Romain; Judy Olson; David Lain, Plaintiffs–Appellants v. MURPHY OIL USA, INCORPORATED; Shell Oil Company; Chevron U.S.A. Incorporated; Exxonmobil Corporation; BP Amoco Chemical Company; BP America Production Company; BP Energy Company; BP Products North America, Incorporated; Placid Oil Company; Kerr–McGee Oil & Gas Corporation; Total Petrochemicals USA, Incorporated; ConocoPhillips Company; Atlantic Richfield Company; Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Incorporated; Occidental Crude Sales, Incorporated; Occidental Energy Marketing, Incorporated; Total Gas & Power North America, Incorporated; Hess Corporation; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; Apache Corporation; Burlington Resources Offshore, Incorporated; AEP Generating Company; Columbus Southern Power Company, doing business as AEP Ohio; Ohio Power Company, doing business as AEP Ohio; Southwestern Electric Power Company; AEP Texas Central Company; AEP Texas North Company; Appalachian Power Company; Indiana Michigan Power Company; Kentucky Power Company; Public Service Company of Oklahoma; Alabama Power Company; Georgia Power Company; Gulf Power Company; Southern Power Company; Tennessee Valley Authority; Xcel Energy, Incorporated; Northen States Power Company of Minnesota; Northern States Power Company of Wisconsin; Public Service Company of Colorado; Southwestern Public Service Company; Cinergy Corporation; Duke Energy Corporation; LG & E Energy, Incorporated; LG & E Power, Incorporated; Kentucky Utilities Company; Western Kentucky Energy Corporation; Carolina Power & Light Company, doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas, Incorporated; Florida Power Corporation, doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Incorporated; Ameren Energy Generating Company; Union Electric Company, doing business as Ameren UE; Ameren Energy Resources Company; Ameren Energy Fuels and Services Company; Central Illinois Public Service Company, doing business as Ameren CIPS; Ameren Energy Marketing Company; Entergy Corporation; Virginia Electric and Power Company; Dominion Energy, Incorporated; Nextera Energy, Incorporated; Florida Power & Light Company; The AES Corporation; Arch Coal, Incorporated; International Coal Group, Incorporated; Alpha Natural Resources, Incorporated; Consol Energy, Incorporated; Foundation Coal Holdings, Incorporated; Massey Energy Company; Westmoreland Coal Company; Peabody Energy Corporation; Rio Tinto Energy America, Incorporated; The North American Coal Corporation; Ohio Valley Coal Company; BHP Minerals International, Incorporated; EI DuPont Denemours & Company; Honeywell International, Incorporated; Dow Chemical Company, Incorporated; Ameren Illinois Company, Defendants–Appellees. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
F. Gerald Maples, F. Gerald Maples, P.A., New Orleans, LA, Plaintiff–Appellant.
Kerry J. Miller, James Royce Parish, Frilot, L.L.C., Tim D. Gray, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, L.L.P., Lawrence E. Abbott, Charles Henderson Abbott, Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott, L.L.P., Martin A. Stern, Adams & Reese, L.L.P., Michael Raudon Phillips, Brittany Lynn Buckley, Louis Matthew Grossman, Kean Miller, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, Jonathan Paul Dyal, Balch & Bingham, L.L.P., Shellye V. McDonald, Richard Patrick Salloum, Franke & Salloum, P.L.L.C., Ben H. Stone, Balch & Bingham, L.L.P., Sherrie Lynn Moore, Webb Sanders & Williams, P.L.L.C., Gulfport, MS, Daniel Paul Collins, Benjamin James Maro, Munger, Tolles & Olson, L.L.P., Matthew T. Heartney, Arnold & Porter, L.L.P., Rick Richmond, Kenneth Kiyul Lee, Kelly Marie Morrison, Jenner & Block, L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, Norman Gene Hortman, Jr., April Crane Ladner, Hortman, Harlow, Bassi, Robinson & McDaniel, P.L.L.C., Laurel, MS, Mary S. Johnson, Johnson Gray McNamara, L.L.C., Mandeville, LA, Robert Ellison Meadows, Jonathan Lawrence Marsh, Tracie Jo Renfroe, King & Spalding, L.L.P., Barrett Hodges Reasoner, Gibbs & Brims, L.L.P., Andrew Friedberg, Apache Corporation, Charles Stephen Kelley, Mayer Brown, L.L.P., Michael L. Rice, Jones Day, Houston, TX, Jonathan D. Hacker, O'Melveny & Myers, L.L.P., Kathleen Taylor Sooy, Tracy Roman, Scott L. Winkelman, Crowell & Moring, L.L.P., Peter D. Keisler, David T. Buente, Jr., Quin Mikael Sorenson, Sidley Austin, L.L.P., Shawn Patrick Regan, F. William Brownell, Norman William Fichthorn, Allison D. Wood, Hunton & Williams, L.L.P., Kevin Patrick Holewinski, Jones Day, Philip S. Goldberg, Christopher Edward Appel, Victor E. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Washington, DC, Nicholas Cosmos Giallourakis, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, L.L.P., J. Wyatt Hazard, Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell, P.A., James Wilbourn Vise, Massey, Higginbotham, Vise & Phillips, P.A., Watts C. Ueltschey, Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, P.L.L.C., William Lee Watt, Bennett, Lotterhos, Sulser & Wilson, P.A., Charles Edwin Ross, James E. Graves, III, Wise Carter Child & Caraway, P.A., James W. Snider, Jr., Entergy Mississippi, Incorporated, Jon Stephen Kennedy, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., Jackson, MS, Nancy Gordon Milburn, Philip Herbert Curtis, Michael B. Gerrard, Senior Counsel, Arnold & Porter, L.L.P., New York, NY, John Gwin Wheeler, Mitchell, McNutt & Sams, Tupelo, MS, Kenneth W. Barton, Benjamin McRae Watson, Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada, P.L.L.C., William Charles Brabec, Adams & Reese, L.L.P., Ridgeland, MS, Robert Donald Gholson, Gholson Burson Entrekin & Orr, P.A., Laurel, MS, Taylor B. McNeel, Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, P.L.L.C., Ronald G. Peresich, Michael Edward Whitehead, Page, Mannino, Peresich & McDermott, P.L.L.C., Biloxi, MS, Timothy S. Bishop, Richard F. Bulger, Chad Matthew Clamage, Mayer Brown, L.L.P., James Patrick Gaughan, Schiff Hardin, L.L.P., Chicago, IL, Raymond Michael Ripple, Donna L. Goodman, Corporation Counsel, DuPont Legal, Wilmington, DE, Steven Robert Williams, Richard Trent Taylor, McGuireWoods, L.L.P., Richmond, VA, Edgar Robert Haden, Michael David Freeman, Balch & Bingham, L.L.P., Birmingham, AL, Maria Victoria Gillen, Edwin Warren Small, Assistant General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of the General Counsel, Knoxville, TN, Thomas E. Fennell, Jones Day, Dallas, TX, for Defendant–Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
A group of Mississippi Gulf Coast residents and property owners (“Plaintiffs”) alleged that emissions by energy companies (“Defendants”) contributed to global warming, which intensified Hurricane Katrina, which, in turn, damaged their property. The district court dismissed their claims with prejudice. A panel of this court reversed, in part, the district court's dismissal. Before mandate could issue, a majority of this court's active, unrecused judges voted for rehearing en banc. After the en banc vote, but before rehearing, an additional judge was recused. This court determined that it lacked quorum to proceed, and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandamus.
The same group of Gulf Coast residents and property owners (“Appellants”) filed what they concede are essentially several of the same claims, against many of the same energy companies (“Appellees”), in the same district court. The district court held, among other things, that the doctrine of res judicata barred their claims. We AFFIRM on the basis of res judicata.
Plaintiffs first filed suit in the Southern District of Mississippi in 2005, alleging that emissions by energy company Defendants “[c]ause[d]” global warming which, increased the “[d]estructive [c]apacity” of Hurricane Katrina, which, in turn, damaged the class members' property. Plaintiffs asserted claims of public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy against the companies.
The district court dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing, and that their claims were not justiciable under the political questions doctrine.
A panel of this court reversed and remanded, in part, the district court's decision. Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, 585 F.3d 855, 879–80 (5th Cir.2009). The panel held that Plaintiffs had standing to bring claims for nuisance, trespass, and negligence. Id. The panel also held that these claims were justiciable under the political questions doctrine. Id. at 880. The panel dismissed Plaintiffs' remaining claims for lack of standing. Id. at 879–80.1
Before the panel opinion's mandate issued, six of this court's nine active, unrecused judges—seven of this court's then-sixteen active judges were recused—voted to rehear the case en banc, in the process vacating the panel's opinion under then-Fifth Circuit Rule 41.3.2 However, before the en banc court reheard the case, an additional judge was recused, leaving only eight active, unrecused judges.
Five of the remaining eight judges issued an order dismissing the appeal for lack of a quorum. Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, 607 F.3d 1049, 1053–55 (5th Cir.2010). They reasoned that “[a]bsent a quorum”—that is, less than a majority of “all circuit judges in regular active service,” 28 U.S.C. § 46(c)—“no court is authorized to transact judicial business.” Id. at 1054. They explained that “[t]he absence of a quorum, however, does not preclude the internal authority of the body to state the facts as they exist in relation to that body, and to apply the established rules to those facts.” Id. Finally, they observed that “[t]he parties, of course, now have the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States.” Id. at 1055.3
Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Campbell
...see also, e.g. , 18 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL. , MOORE ’ S FEDERAL PRACTICE – Civil § 134.22[2][c] (3d ed. 2021); Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. , 718 F.3d 460, 468 (5th Cir. 2013) ("Unless otherwise expressly provided, the granting of a rehearing en banc vacates the panel opinion and judgment o......
-
United States v. Leon-Gonzalez
...as it did not meet the clear and unambiguous directions from Congress vesting it with jurisdiction. Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. , 718 F.3d 460, 467 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh , 428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2005) ; see infra 1030–31, 1032–33. Travelers......
-
Fresh Air for the Eastside, Inc. v. Waste Mgmt. of N.Y., L.L.C.
...Court also determined that WMNY's reliance upon Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. , 839 F. Supp. 2d 849 (S.D. Miss. 2012), aff'd , 718 F.3d 460 (5th Cir. 2013) was misplaced because that case involved litigation seeking to apply common law remedies to address global climate change—an exceedingl......
-
United States v. Louisiana
...by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action was involved in both action," Comer v. Murphy Oil USA , 718 F.3d 460, 467 (5th Cir.2013) ; accord Stevens v. Bank of Am., N.A. , 587 Fed.Appx. 130, 132–33 (5th Cir.2014). More simply, this "relevant aspect of res j......
-
CLIMATE RISK IN THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR: LEGAL OBLIGATIONS TO ADVANCE CLIMATE RESILIENCE PLANNING BY ELECTRIC UTILITIES.
...of res judicata and collateral estoppel or, alternatively, that the plaintiffs did not have standing to assert their claims), affirmed, 718 F.3d 460, 464 (5th Cir. 2013) (upholding the district court's dismissal of the case on the basis of res (346) See, e.g., San Mateo Complaint, supra not......
-
Using Issue Certification Against a Defendant Class to Establish Causation in Climate Change Litigtion
...for damages or declaratory relief, the availability of judicial redress should pose no signiicant issues. 33. Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, 718 F.3d 460, 43 ELR 20109 (5th Cir. 2013). 34. Foerster, supra note 12, at 313; Richard Heede, Tracing Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Methane Emissions t......
-
LOCATING LIABILITY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RECENT TRENDS IN CLIMATE JURISPRUDENCE.
...564 U.S. 410, 418 (2011); Native Vill. of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 696 F.3d 849, 853 (9th Cir. 2012); Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 718 F.3d 460, 465 (5th Cir. (19) Albert C. Lin & Michael Burger, State Public Nuisance Claims and Climate Change Adaptation, 36 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 4......
-
Litigating Climate Change in National Courts: Recent Trends and Developments in Global Climate Law
...dismissed when they attempted to reile. Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 839 F. Supp. 2d 849, 855, 42 ELR 20067 (S.D. Miss. 2012), af’d , 718 F.3d 460, 43 ELR 20109 (5th Cir. 2013). 110. Native Vill. of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 663 F. Supp. 2d 863, 39 ELR 20236 (N.D. Cal. 2009), af’d , 6......