Minnesota v. Am. Petroleum Inst.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 20-1636 (JRT/HB) |
| Parties | STATE OF MINNESOTA, by its Attorney General Keith Ellison Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION, KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC., FLINT HILLS RESOURCES, LP, and FLINT HILLS RESOURCES PINE BEND Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Elizabeth C. Kramer, Leigh K. Currie, Oliver J. Larson, and Peter N. Surdo, OFFICE OF THE MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100, St. Paul, MN 55101; Matthew Kendall Edling and Victor Marc Sher, SHER EDLING LLP, 100 Montgomery Street, Suite 1410, San Francisco, CA 94104, for plaintiff.
Eric F. Swanson and Thomas H. Boyd, WINTHROP & WEINSTINE PA, 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3500, Minneapolis, MN 55402; Andrew Gerald McBride, MCGUIRE WOODS LLP, 2001 K Street Northwest, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20006; and Brian David Schmalzbach, MCGUIRE WOODS LLP, 800 East Canal Street, Richmond, VA 23219, for defendant American Petroleum Institute.
Jerry W. Blackwell and Gurdip S. Atwal, BLACKWELL BURKE PA, 431 South Seventh Street, Suite 2500, Minneapolis, MN 55415; Daniel J. Toal and Theodore V. Wells, Jr., PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019; Justin Anderson, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP, 2001 K Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20006; and Patrick J. Conlon, EXXON MOBIL
CORPORATION, 22777 Springwoods Village Parkway, Suite N1.4B.388, Spring, TX 77389, for defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation.
Michelle Schmit and Stephen Andrew Swedlow, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2700, Chicago, IL 60606; William Anthony Burck, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, 1300 I Street Northwest, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005; Andrew M. Luger, JONES DAY, 90 South Seventh Street, Suite 4950, Minneapolis, MN 55402; Debra Rose Belott, JONES DAY, 51 Louisiana Avenue Northwest, Washington, DC 20001; and Andrew W. Davis, Peter J. Schwingler, and Todd A. Noteboom, STINSON LLP, 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for defendants Koch Industries, Inc., Flint Hills Resources, LP, and Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend.
Plaintiff State of Minnesota ("the State") commenced this action in Minnesota state court against Defendants American Petroleum Institute ("API"), Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Koch Industries, Inc., Flint Hills Resources LP, and Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend asserting five causes of action for violations of Minnesota common law and consumer protection statutes. The State alleges that Defendants developed a widespread campaign to deceive the public about the dangers of fossil fuels and to undermine the scientific consensus linking fossil fuel emissions to climate change.
Defendants removed the action to federal court on seven independent grounds: federal common law; disputed and substantial federal issues (the Grable doctrine); the federal officer removal statute; the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; federal enclaves; the Class Action Fairness Act; and diversity. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand to statecourt. Because Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction is warranted on any of the grounds presented, the Court will grant the State's Motion.
Defendants Koch Industries, Inc., Flint Hills Resources LP, and Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend (collectively, "FHR Defendants") have also filed a Motion to Stay to await the Supreme Court's decision in BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, No. 19-1189 (U.S.) and the Court's determination on a Petition for Certiorari in Chevron Corporation et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. (U.S., Jan. 8, 2021). Plaintiff opposes this motion. Because the Court finds that the Baltimore case is before the Supreme Court on a narrow procedural question not at issue here and the dispensation of the petition in City of Oakland is too speculative to warrant a stay in the instant proceedings, the Court will deny FHR Defendants' Motion to Stay.
The Attorney General brings this action pursuant to his authority under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 8 and his parens patriae authority under state common law. (
Defendant American Petroleum Institute (API) is a nonprofit corporation registered to do business in Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 13.) API was established in 1919 and is the country's largest oil trade association, with over 600 members. (Id.) Defendant ExxonMobil Corporation is a multinational, vertically integrated energy and chemicals company incorporated in New Jersey with a principal place of business in Irving, Texas. (Id. ¶ 17.) Exxon Mobil Corporation is the parent company for numerous subsidiaries and has done business as or is the successor in liability to numerous entities. (Id.) Defendant ExxonMobil Oil Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Exxon Mobil Corporation, incorporated in New York with a principal place of business in Irving, Texas. (Id. ¶ 19.) Defendant Koch Industries, Inc. ("Koch") is an American multinational corporation based in Wichita, Kansas. (Id. ¶ 28.) Koch is the parent company for numerous subsidiaries involved in the manufacturing, refining, and distribution of petroleum products. (Id. ¶ 29.) Koch, as well as many of its subsidiaries and affiliates, is registered to do business in Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 31.)
Defendants Flint Hills Resources LP and Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC, subsidiaries of Koch, are licensed distributors of petroleum products in Minnesota. (Id.) Koch subsidiaries import crude oil from Canada to a terminal in Clearbrook, Minnesota, which is owned and operated by Koch. (Id. ¶ 32.) Oil is piped from the Clearbrook terminal to the Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend Refinery via other Koch-owned pipelines. (Id.) Flint Hills Resources' Pine Bend Refinery refines the majority of the motor gasoline consumed in Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 37.)
Beginning in the 1950s, scientists—including many employed by the fossil fuel industry—began to understand that burning fossil fuels released additional greenhouse gasses, drove up atmospheric concentration, changed the carbon ratio in the atmosphere, and impacted global temperature and climate. (Id. ¶¶ 55-59.) The State alleges that by 1965, Defendants and their predecessors-in-interest were aware that widely used fossil-fuel products would cause global warming by the end of the century and would have wide-ranging and costly consequences. (Id. ¶ 60.)
The State alleges that Defendants were at the forefront of scientific discourse about climate change and its relationship to fossil fuels, and were privy to research developed by industry-employed scientists as well as independent analyses, including research commissioned by Defendants and their colleagues. (Id. ¶¶ 60-72.) By the 1980s, there was an established consensus among scientists and within the fossil fuel industry that atmospheric CO2 concentrations were reaching dangerous levels and would significantly impact the earth's climate, and international coalitions had begun to emerge to address the issue. (Id. ¶ 73.)
The State alleges that, as the international and scientific consensus coalesced around the relationship between fossil fuels emissions and climate change, Defendants mounted an aggressive campaign to undermine the public's perception of climatescience. (Id. ¶¶ 82-87.) Defendants allegedly spent millions of dollars on advertising and public relations campaigns, in Minnesota and elsewhere, to mislead consumers and the general public about the scientific consensus around climate change, the relationship between climate change and their fossil-fuel products, and the urgency of the dangers of climate change. (Id. ¶¶ 88-90). The State further alleges that Defendants funneled hundreds of millions more dollars to organizations that publicly promoted false statements about and denied the existence of climate change, and paid scientists to produce misleading reports and materials, which Defendants' then cited and promoted to support their own fraudulent statements. (Id. ¶¶ 92-131.)
The State identifies two broad categories of alleged injuries caused by Defendants' misinformation campaign: (1) harms to consumers who relied on Defendants' false information, (id. ¶¶ 172-83); and (2) environmental and social harms from increased consumption of fossil fuels, including changes in climate, damage to infrastructure, and worsening public health, (id. ¶¶ 139-71), all of which, the State avers, could have been mitigated, but for Defendants' campaign, (id. ¶¶ 172, 213-14).
Plaintiff commenced this action in Minnesota state court asserting five counts related to Defendants' alleged misinformation campaign: (1) violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"), Minnesota Statutes § 325F.69; (2) failure to warn under common law theories of strict liability and negligence, against all Defendants except API;(3) common law fraud and misrepresentation; (4) violations of the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"),Minnesota Statutes § 325D.44; and (5) violations of the Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act ("FSAA"),Minnesota Statutes § 325F.67. (Id. ¶¶ 184-242.) The State seeks damages, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits made as a result of unlawful conduct, and an order enjoining Defendants from continued violations of the CFA, DTPA, and FSAA. (Id. ¶¶ 244, 247-249.). The State also requests that Defendants be compelled to disclose, disseminate, and publish all research that they conducted directly or indirectly relating to climate change, and fund a corrective climate change public education campaign in Minnesota,...
To continue reading
Request your trial