Mayor & City Council of Balt. v. BP P.L.C.
| Decision Date | 06 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-1644,19-1644 |
| Citation | 952 F.3d 452 |
| Parties | MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BP P.L.C.; BP America, Inc.; BP Products North America, Inc.; Crown Central LLC; Crown Central New Holdings LLC; Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; Exxon Mobil Corp.; ExxonMobil Oil Corporation; Royal Dutch Shell, PLC; Shell Oil Company; Citgo Petroleum Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Company; Phillips 66; Marathon Oil Company; Marathon Oil Corporation; Marathon Petroleum Corporation; Speedway LLC; Hess Corp.; CNX Resources Corporation ; CONSOL Energy, Inc.; CONSOL Marine Terminals LLC, Defendants – Appellants, and Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. ; Phillips 66 Company; Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, Defendants. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Amicus Supporting Appellants. National League of Cities; U.S. Conference of Mayors; International Municipal Lawyers Association; Public Citizen, Inc.; Sheldon Whitehouse ; Edward J. Markey ; State of Maryland; State of California; State of Connecticut; State of New Jersey; State of New York; State of Oregon; State of Rhode Island; State of Vermont; State of Washington; Mario J. Molina; Michael Oppenheimer; Bob Kopp ; Friederike Otto; Susanne C. Moser; Donald J. Wuebbles; Gary Griggs; Peter C. Frumhoff; Kristina Dahl; Natural Resources Defense Council; Robert Brulle; Center for Climate Integrity; Chesapeake Climate Action Network; Justin Farrell; Ben Franta; Stephan Lewandowsky; Naomi Oreskes; Geoffrey Supran; Union of Concerned Scientists, Amici Supporting Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
ARGUED: Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellants. Victor Marc Sher, SHER EDLING LLP, San Francisco, California, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Joshua S. Lipshutz, Washington, D.C., Anne Champion, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, New York, New York; Ty Kelly, Jonathan Biran, BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. John B. Isbister, Jaime W. Luse, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip H. Curtis, Nancy G. Milburn, New York, New York, Matthew T. Heartney, John D. Lombardo, ARNOLD & PORTER KAY SCHOLER LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellants BP Products North America Inc., BP P.L.C., and BP America Inc. Craig A. Thompson, VENABLE LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Daniel J. Toal, Jaren Janghorbani, New York, New York, Kannon Shanmugam, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON, GARRISON LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants Exxon
Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation. David C. Frederick, James M. Webster, III, Brendan J. Crimmins, Grace W. Knofczynski, KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C.; Daniel B. Levin, Los Angeles, California, Jerome B. Roth, Elizabeth A. Kim, MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP, San Francisco, California, for Shell Oil Company and Royal Dutch Shell, PLC. Warren N. Weaver, Peter Sheehan, WHITEFORD TAYLOR AND PRESTON LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Nathan P. Eimer, Pamela R. Hanebutt, Ryan Walsh, Raphael Janove, EIMER STAHL LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant Citgo Petroleum Corporation. Michael A. Brown, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Sean C. Grimsley, Jameson R. Jones, BARTLIT BECK LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Appellants ConocoPhillips and ConocoPhillips Company. Jonathan Chunwei Su, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant Phillips 66. Steven M. Bauer, Margaret A. Tough, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, San Francisco, California, for Appellants ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company, and Phillips 66. Shannon S. Broome, San Francisco, California, Shawn Patrick Regan, New York, New York, Ann Marie Mortimer, HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellants Marathon Petroleum Corp. and Speedway, LLC. Scott Janoe, Houston, Texas, Megan Berge, Emily Wilson, BAKER BOTTS L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellant Hess Corp. Michelle N. Lipkowitz, Thomas K. Prevas, SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants Crown Central LLC and Crown Central New Holdings LLC. Kathleen Taylor Sooy, Tracy Ann Roman, Washington, D.C., Honor R. Costello, CROWELL & MORING LLP, New York, New York, for Appellants CNX Resources Corporation, Consol Energy Inc., and Consol Marine Terminals LLC. Matthew K. Edling, SHER EDLING LLP, San Francisco, California; Andre M. Davis, Suzanne Sangree, BALTIMORE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Steven P. Lehotsky, Michael B. Schon, UNITED STATES CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, Washington, D.C.; Peter D. Keisler, C. Frederick Beckner III, Ryan C. Morris, Tobias S. Loss-Eaton, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. Michael Burger, Susan Kraham, MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS LEGAL SERVICES, INC., New York, New York, for Amici The National League of Cities, The United States Conference of Mayors, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association. Scott L. Nelson, Allison M. Zieve, PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Public Citizen, Inc. Gerson H. Smoger, SMOGER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Dallas, Texas; Robert S. Peck, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Amici Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Edward J. Markey. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Joshua M. Segal, Special Assistant Attorney General, Steven J. Goldstein, Special Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Amicus State of Maryland. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, Sacramento, California, for Amicus State of California. William Tong, Attorney General, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CONNECTICUT, Hartford, Connecticut, for Amicus State of Connecticut. Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY, Trenton, New Jersey, for Amicus State of New Jersey. Letitia James, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, Albany, New York, for Amicus State of New York. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Salem, Oregon, for Amicus State of Oregon. Peter F. Neronha, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RHODE ISLAND, Providence, Rhode Island, for Amicus State of Rhode Island. Thomas J. Donovan, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VERMONT, Montpelier, Vermont, for Amicus State of Vermont. Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON, Olympia, Washington, for Amicus State of Washington. William A. Rossbach, ROSSBACH LAW, PC, Missoula, Montana, for Amici Mario J. Molina, Michael Oppenheimer, Bob Kopp, Friederike Otto, Susanne C. Moser, Donald J. Wuebbles, Gary Griggs, Peter C. Frumhoff, and Kristina Dahl. Peter Huffman, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Natural Resources Defense Council. Mark A. Griffin, Amy Williams-Derry, Daniel P. Mensher, Alison S. Gaffney, KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P., Seattle, Washington, for Amici Robert Brulle, Center for Climate Integrity, The Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Justin Farrell, Benjamin Franta, Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes, Geoffrey Supran, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Floyd wrote the opinion in which Chief Judge Gregory and Judge Thacker joined.
This appeal is about whether a climate-change lawsuit against oil and gas companies belongs in federal court. But this decision is only about whether one path to federal court lies open. Because 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) confines our appellate jurisdiction, the narrow question before us is whether removal of this lawsuit is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, commonly referred to as the federal officer removal statute. And because we conclude that § 1442 does not provide a proper basis for removal, we affirm the district court’s remand order.
In July 2018, the Mayor and City of Baltimore ("Baltimore") filed suit in Maryland state court against twenty-six multinational oil and gas companies ("Defendants") that it says are partly responsible for climate change.1 According to Baltimore, Defendants substantially contributed to climate change by producing, promoting, and (misleadingly) marketing fossil fuel products long after learning the dangers associated with them. Specifically, Baltimore alleges that, despite knowing about the direct link between fossil fuel use and global warming for nearly fifty years, Defendants have engaged in a "coordinated, multi-front effort" to conceal that knowledge; have tried to discredit the growing body of publicly available scientific evidence by championing sophisticated disinformation campaigns; and have actively attempted to undermine public support for regulation of their business practices, all while promoting the unrestrained and expanded use of their fossil fuel products. See J.A. 43–47. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Baltimore avers that it has suffered various "climate change-related injuries," J.A. 92, including an increase in sea levels, storms, floods, heatwaves, droughts, and extreme precipitation. So Baltimore sued Defendants to shift some of the costs of these injuries on to them.
The Complaint asserts eight causes of action, all founded on Maryland law: public and private nuisance (Counts I–II); strict liability for failure to warn and design defect (Counts III–IV); negligent design defect and failure to warn (Counts V–VI); trespass (Count VII); and violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code, Com. Law §§ 13-101 to 13-501 (Count VIII). As relief, Baltimore seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, and equitable relief. It does not "seek to impose liability on Defendants for their direct emissions of greenhouse gases" or to "r...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W.Va. State Univ. Bd. of Governors ex rel. W.Va. State Univ. v. Dow Chem. Co., Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-3558
...Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., 388 F. Supp. 3d 538, 569 (D. Md. 2019), as amended (June 20, 2019), aff'd, 952 F.3d 452 (4th Cir. 2020). Ryan v. Dow Chem. Co., 781 F. Supp. 934, 950 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (finding that defendants could not remove under § 1442(a)(1) because "[a]ltho......
-
Delaware v. BP Am. Inc.
...under the OCS lease program, may be "too remote." Hoboken , 558 F.Supp.3d at 207-09 ; see also Mayor of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C. ("Baltimore II "), 952 F.3d 452, 466 (4th Cir. 2020).23 On the other hand, although Defendants’ participation in the OCS lease program does not form the source of t......
-
City of Hoboken v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
...OCS and the conduct alleged in the Complaint is simply too remote" to satisfy the third prong. Mayor & City Council of Balt. v. BP P.L.C. (Baltimore II ), 952 F.3d 452, 466 (4th Cir. 2020). The Fourth Circuit further explained that although Baltimore's complaint references the defendants’ p......
-
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Boulder Cnty. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.
...of their authority and bring them to trial in a state court for an alleged state-law offense." Mayor & City Council of Balt. v. BP P.L.C. (Baltimore II) , 952 F.3d 452, 461 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc. , 551 U.S. 142, 150, 127 S.Ct. 2301, 168 L.Ed.2d 42 (2007)......
-
The Perils and Promise of Public Nuisance.
...[https://perma.cc/BK8J-TJHL]. (126.) See, e.g., Mayor of Balt. v. BP P.L.C., 952 F.3d 452 (4th Cir. 2020) (decided on jurisdictional and removal grounds), vacated, 141 S. Ct. 1532 (2021); County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 960 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2020) (decided on jurisdictional and remov......
-
CLIMATE RISK IN THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR: LEGAL OBLIGATIONS TO ADVANCE CLIMATE RESILIENCE PLANNING BY ELECTRIC UTILITIES.
...(341) Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011). (342) Id at 415. (343) Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., 952 F.3d 452 (4th Cir. 2020), vacated, BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City of Baltimore, U.S. No. 19-1189 (May 17, (344) Cty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 960 ......
-
Using Issue Certification Against a Defendant Class to Establish Causation in Climate Change Litigtion
...jurisdiction over questions of remand not arising under 28 U.S.C. §§1442 and 1443. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., 952 F.3d 452, 50 ELR 20051 (4th Cir. 2020). BP appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Fourth Circuit had jurisdiction to review the remand o......
-
LOCATING LIABILITY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RECENT TRENDS IN CLIMATE JURISPRUDENCE.
...of Maryland to stay the remand pending that appeal, but the District of Maryland refused. Mayor & City Council of Balt. v. BP P.L.C., 952 F.3d 452, 457 (4th Cir. 2020). Though the Fourth Circuit is still considering whether the case can proceed in state court, on October 2, 2019, it rul......