City of Oakland v. BP PLC, No. 18-16663
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Order; Opinion by Judge Ikuta |
| Citation | 969 F.3d 895 |
| Parties | CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal Corporation, and The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Oakland City Attorney; City and County of San Francisco, a Municipal Corporation, and The People of the State of California, acting by and through the San Francisco City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BP PLC, a public limited company of England and Wales; Chevron Corporation, a Delaware corporation; ConocoPhillips, a Delaware corporation; Exxon Mobil Corporation, a New Jersey corporation; Royal Dutch Shell PLC, a public limited company of England and Wales; Does, 1 through 10, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 18-16663 |
| Decision Date | 26 May 2020 |
969 F.3d 895
CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal Corporation, and The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Oakland City Attorney; City and County of San Francisco, a Municipal Corporation, and The People of the State of California, acting by and through the San Francisco City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BP PLC, a public limited company of England and Wales; Chevron Corporation, a Delaware corporation; ConocoPhillips, a Delaware corporation; Exxon Mobil Corporation, a New Jersey corporation; Royal Dutch Shell PLC, a public limited company of England and Wales; Does, 1 through 10, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-16663
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted February 5, 2020 Pasadena, California
Filed May 26, 2020
Amended August 12, 2020
COUNSEL Michael Rubin (argued), Barbara J. Chisholm, Rebecca Moryl Lee, and Corinne F. Johnson, Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, California; Victor M. Sher and Matthew K. Edling, Sher Edling LLP, San Francisco, California; Barbara J. Parker, City Attorney; Maria Bee, Special Counsel; Erin Bernstein, Supervising Attorney; Malia McPherson, Deputy; Office of the City Attorney, Oakland, California; Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney; Ronald P. Flynn, Chief Deputy; Yvonne R. Meré, Chief, Complex Litigation; Matthew D. Goldberg and Robb W. Kapla, Deputies; City Attorney's Office, San Francisco, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. (argued), Andrea E. Neuman, and William E. Thomson, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California; Joshua S. Lipshutz, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, California; Neal S. Manne, Johnny W. Carter, Erica Harris, and Steven Shepard, Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, Texas; Herbert J. Stern and Joel M. Silverstein, Stern & Kilcullen LLC, Florham Park, New Jersey; Andrea E. Neuman and William E. Thomson, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California; Joshua S. Lipshutz and Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C.; Neal S. Manne, Johnny W. Carter, Erica Harris, and Steven Shepard, Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, Texas; Herbert J. Stern and Joel M. Silverstein, Stern & Kilcullen LLC, Florham Park, New Jersey; for Defendant-Appellee Chevron Corporation.
Kannon K. Shanmugam (argued), Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, D.C.; Theodore V. Wells Jr., Daniel J. Toal, and Jaren Janghorbani, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, New York; M. Randall Oppenheimer and Dawn Sestito, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellant Exxon Mobil Corporation.
Daniel B. Levin, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, California; Jerome C. Roth and Elizabeth A. Kim, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco, California; David C. Frederick and Brendan J. Crimmins, Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C.; for Defendant-Appellee Royal Dutch Shell PLC.
Jonathan W. Hughes, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, San Francisco, California; Matthew T. Heartney and John D. Lombardo, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Los Angeles, California; Philip H. Curtis and Nancy Milburn, Arnold Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, New York; for Defendant-Appellee for BP PLC.
Sean C. Grimsley and Jameson R. Jones, Bartlit Beck LLP, Denver, Colorado; Megan R. Nishikawa and Nicholas A. Miller-Stratton, King & Spalding LLP, San Francisco, California; Tracie J. Renfroe and Carol M. Wood, King & Spalding LLP, Houston, Texas; for Defendant-Appellant ConocoPhillips.
Jonathan Brightbill (argued) and Eric Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorneys General; Robert J. Lundman, R. Justin Smith, and Christine W. Ennis, Trial Attorneys; Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae United States.
Michael Burger, Morningside Heights Legal Services, Inc., New York, New York, for Amici Curiae National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and International Municipal Lawyers Association.
Michael R. Lozeau and Richard T. Drury, Lozeau Drury LLP, Oakland, California, for Amici Curiae Conflict of Laws and Foreign Relations Law Scholars.
Gerson H. Smoger, Smoger & Associates P.C., Dallas, Texas; Robert S. Peck, Center for Constitutional Litigation P.C., Washington, D.C.; for Amici Curiae Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Blumenthal, Mazie K. Hirono, Edward J. Markey, and Kamala D. Harris.
Seth Davis, Berkeley, California; Ruthanne M. Deutsch and Hyland Hunt, Deutsch Hunt PLLC, Washington, D.C.; for Amici Curiae Legal Scholars.
John W. Keker, Matthew Werdegar, and Dan Jackson, Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, California; Harold Hongju Koh and Conor Dwyer Reynolds, Rule of Law Clinic, Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut; for Amici Curiae Former U.S. Government Officials.
James R. Williams, County Counsel; Greta S. Hansen, Chief Assistant County Counsel; Laura S. Trice, Lead Deputy County Counsel; Tony LoPresti, Deputy County Counsel; Office of County Counsel, County of Santa Clara, San José, California; for Amicus Curiae California State Association of Counties.
Daniel P. Mensher and Alison S. Gaffney, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Seattle, Washington, for Amici Curiae Robert Brulle, Center for Climate Integrity, Justin Farrell, Benjamin Franta, Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes, Geoffrey Supran, and Union of Concerned Scientists.
Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP, Washington, D.C.; William A. Rossbach, Rossbach Law PC, Missoula, Montana; for Amici Curiae Mario J. Molina, Michael Oppenheimer, Bob Kopp, Friederike Otto, Susanne C. Moser, Donald J. Wuebbles, Gary Griggs, Peter C. Frumhoff, and Kristina Dahl.
Ian Fein, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, California; Peter Huffman, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae Natural Resources Defense Council.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General; Sally Magnani, Senior Assistant Attorney General; David A. Zonana, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Erin Ganahl and Heather Leslie, Deputy Attorneys General; Attorney General's Office, Sacramento, California; William Tong, Brian E. Frosh, Keith Ellison, Gurbir S. Grewal, Letitia James, Ellen F. Rosenblum ; Peter F. Neronha, Thomas J. Donovan Jr., Robert W. Ferguson, and Karl A. Racine, Attorneys General; for Amici Curiae States of California, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, and the District of Columbia.
Steven P. Lehotsky, Michael B. Schon, and Jonathan D. Urick, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, Washington, D.C.; Peter D. Keisler, C. Frederick Beckner III, Ryan C. Morris, and Tobias S. Loss-Eaton, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C.; Zachary D. Tripp and Lauren E. Morris, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Washington, D.C.; Sarah M. Sternlieb, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, New York; for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.
Corbin K. Barthold and Cory L. Andrews, Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Washington Legal Foundation.
Philip S. Goldberg and Christopher E. Appel, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Washington, D.C.; Linda E. Kelly and Peter C. Tolsdorf, Manufacturers’ Center for Legal Action, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae National Association of Manufacturers.
Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General; Thomas M. Fisher, Solicitor General; Kian J. Hudson, Deputy Solicitor General; Julia C. Payne and Robert Rowlett, Deputy Attorneys General; Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana; Steve Marshall, Kevin G. Clarkson, Leslie Rutledge, Christopher M. Carr, Derek Schmidt, Jeff Landry, Eric Schmitt, Tim Fox, Doug Peterson, Wayne Stenehjem, Dave Yost, Mike Hunter, Alan Wilson, Jason R. Ravnsborg, Ken Paxton, Sean Reyes, Patrick Morrissey, and Bridget Hill, Attorneys General; for Amici Curiae States of Indiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Raymond A. Cardozo and David J. de Jesus, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, California; Richard A. Epstein, Chicago, Illinois; for Amici Curiae Professors Richard A. Epstein, Jason Scott Johnston, and Henry N. Butler.
Before: Sandra S. Ikuta, Morgan Christen, and Kenneth K. Lee, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION
Order; Opinion by Judge Ikuta
ORDER
The opinion filed on May 26, 2020, appearing at 960 F.3d 570 (9th Cir. 2020), is amended as follows:
At page 585, footnote 12, replace:
< The district court requested supplemental briefing on how the concept of the ' ‘navigable waters of the United States’ ... relates to the removal jurisdiction issue in th[e] case.' As the Cities pointed out, however, the Energy Companies waived any argument related to admiralty jurisdiction by not invoking it in their notices of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) (notice of removal must "contain[ ] a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal"); ARCO , 213 F.3d at 1117 (notice of removal "cannot be amended to add a separate basis for removal jurisdiction after the thirty day period" (citation omitted));
O'Halloran, 856...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Boulder Cnty. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.) Inc., 19-1330
...law.'" Id. at 93 (quoting City of Oakland v. BP P.L.C., 960 F.3d 570, 575 (9th Cir. 2020), amended & superseded on denial of reh'g, 969 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2020)). The court explained that each of the decisions that concluded federal common law did not preempt the plaintiff's state-law claim......
-
Harper v. United States Dep't Of Interior, 1:21-cv-00197-CRK
...sufficiency of 9 the complaint. Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011); see also City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895, 910 (9th Cir. 2020). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a cl......
-
Mayor of Balt. v. BP P.L.C, 19-1644
...Power, 564 U.S. at 423; Nat'l Sea Clammers, 453 U.S. at 21-22; City of Milwaukee, 451 U.S at 312-20; see also City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895, 906 (9th Cir. 2020). This all means something simple. Public nuisance claims involving interstate pollution, including issues about greenhou......
-
Earth Island Inst. v. Crystal Geyser Water Co., Case No. 20-cv-02212-HSG
...877 that property had been unlawfully seized by the IRS because the notice of the seizure did not comply with the Internal Revenue Code." 969 F.3d 895, 904 (9th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). "In other cases where parties have sought to invoke federal jurisdiction over state-law claims, th......
-
Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Boulder Cnty. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.) Inc., 19-1330
...Id. at 93 (quoting City of Oakland v. BP P.L.C., 960 F.3d 570, 575 (9th Cir. 2020), amended & superseded on denial of reh'g, 969 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2020)). The court explained that each of the decisions that concluded federal common law did not preempt the plaintiff's state-law claims h......
-
Harper v. United States Dep't Of Interior, 1:21-cv-00197-CRK
...sufficiency of 9 the complaint. Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011); see also City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895, 910 (9th Cir. 2020). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a cl......
-
Mayor of Balt. v. BP P.L.C, 19-1644
...Power, 564 U.S. at 423; Nat'l Sea Clammers, 453 U.S. at 21-22; City of Milwaukee, 451 U.S at 312-20; see also City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895, 906 (9th Cir. 2020). This all means something simple. Public nuisance claims involving interstate pollution, including issues about greenhou......
-
Earth Island Inst. v. Crystal Geyser Water Co., Case No. 20-cv-02212-HSG
...that property had been unlawfully seized by the IRS because the notice of the seizure did not comply with the Internal Revenue Code." 969 F.3d 895, 904 (9th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). "In other cases where parties have sought to invoke federal jurisdiction over state-law clai......
-
Using Issue Certification Against a Defendant Class to Establish Causation in Climate Change Litigtion
...Online 25, 32-35 (2018). Fortunately, the district court’s decision was vacated and remanded on appeal in City of Oakland v. BP P.L.C. , 969 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2021). 114. Foerster, supra note 12, at 321. 115. Id . at 308. 116. Id . at 317-18. to disclose under inancial reporting rules. Acc......
-
CASE SUMMARIES.
...Supp. 3d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2018). (208) City of Oakland v. BP P.L.C., 960 F.3d 570, 575 (9th Cir. 2020). (209) City of Oakland v. BP P.LO, 969 F.3d 895, 902 (9th Cir. 2020). 210 (211) 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). (212) Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 75 (1996). (213) Id. at 73. (214) Id.......