State v. Chevron Corp.

• Decision Date: 13 August 2020
• Docket Number: C. A. PC-2018-4716
• Court: Rhode Island Superior Court
• Parties: STATE OF RHODE ISLAND v. CHEVRON CORP.; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; EXXONMOBIL CORP.; BP P.L.C.; BP AMERICA, INC.; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC; MOTIVA ENTERPRISES, LLC; SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC; CITGO PETROLEUM CORP.; CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; PHILLIPS 66; MARATHON OIL COMPANY; MARATHON OIL CORPORATION; MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP.; MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LP; SPEEDWAY LLC; HESS CORP.; LUKOIL PAN AMERICAS, LLC; GETTY PETROLEUM MARKETING, INC.; AND DOES 1 through 100, inclusive

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
v.
CHEVRON CORP.; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; EXXONMOBIL CORP.; BP P.L.C.; BP AMERICA, INC.; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC; MOTIVA ENTERPRISES, LLC; SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC; CITGO PETROLEUM CORP.; CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; PHILLIPS 66; MARATHON OIL COMPANY; MARATHON OIL CORPORATION; MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP.; MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LP; SPEEDWAY LLC; HESS CORP.; LUKOIL PAN AMERICAS, LLC; GETTY PETROLEUM MARKETING, INC.; AND DOES 1 through 100, inclusive

C. A. No. PC-2018-4716

Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence

August 13, 2020

For Plaintiff: SEE ATTACHED LIST

For Defendant: SEE ATTACHED LIST

DECISION

VOGEL, J.

Plaintiff, State of Rhode Island, has filed suit against multiple oil companies^[1] alleging that they have contributed to climate change and that said contribution has damaged the State's infrastructure and coastal communities. The Defendants have filed two separate Joint Motions to Dismiss. Defendants first move to dismiss the action pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), asserting lack of jurisdiction over the person.^[2] Defendants also seek dismissal of the Complaint under Super. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.^[3]Plaintiff objects to both motions.

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will delay further proceedings on Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss under Super. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and on Plaintiff's request for jurisdic-tional discovery pending decisions from both the United States Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of Bandemer v. Ford Motor Company, 931 N.W.2d 744 (Minn. 2019), cert. granted, Ford Motor Company v. Bandemer, 140 S.Ct. 916 (Mem), 205 L.Ed.2d 519 (2020) and Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 443 P.3d 407 (Mont. 2019), cert. granted, Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 140 S.Ct. 917 (Mem), 205 L.Ed.2d 519 (2020), and the Rhode Island Supreme Court Order in Martins v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, No. 2018-143-Appeal (filed Jan. 23, 2020). The Court declines to consider Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss under Super. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) until it determines, pursuant to the Super. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion, whether one or more of the Defendants are properly before the Court.

I

Facts and Travel

Plaintiff filed this action on July 2, 2018. Defendants are multinational oil and gas companies and some of their subsidiaries, including "vertically integrated extractors, producers, refiners, manufacturers, distributors, promoters, marketers, and sellers of fossil fuel products." (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 21-28.) Plaintiff alleges that since the mid-20th century, the production and use of fossil fuel products has directly and substantially contributed to the dramatic rise in emissions of greenhouse gas pollution and increased carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere. Id. According to Plaintiff, the increase in anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas pollution, primarily in the form of CO2 emissions, constitutes the dominant cause of global climate change. Id. ¶¶ 2-3. Plaintiff contends that climate change results in severe damage to the globe, "including, but not limited to, sea level rise, disruption to the hydrologic cycle, more frequent and more intense drought, more frequent and more extreme precipitation, more frequent and more intense heatwaves, and associated consequences of those physical and environmental changes." Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiff claims that the main cause of greenhouse gas pollution is the extraction, production, and consumption of coal, oil and natural gas, commonly referred to as fossil fuels products. Id.

Plaintiff asserts that the yearly rate of CO2 emissions from the extraction, production and consumption of fossil fuels has increased by more than 60% since 1990. Id. ¶ 4. Plaintiff additionally claims that, between 1965 and 2015, Defendants collectively were responsible for 182.9 gigatons of CO2 emissions, thereby accounting for 14.81% of global emissions of dangerous greenhouse gas. Id. ¶ 7.

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have known for almost 50 years that the unrestricted production and use of their fossil fuel products create greenhouse gases. Id. ¶ 5. Pollution caused by greenhouse gases warms the planet, changes its climate, and causes sea levels to rise. Id. Plaintiff maintains that Defendants, acting individually and together, "have substantially and measurably contributed to the State's climate change-related injuries" because of their

"lead role in promoting, marketing, and selling their fossil fuel products between 1965 and 2015; their efforts to conceal the hazards of those products from consumers; their promotion of their fossil fuel products despite knowing the dangers associate[d] with those products; their dogged campaign against regulation of those products based on falsehoods, omissions, and deceptions; and their failure to pursue less hazardous alternatives available to them ." Id. ¶ 105

As a result of this alleged wrongful conduct, Plaintiff asserts that the Rhode Island coastline is suffering, and will continue to suffer, from increased sea levels, extreme heat days, flooding, extreme rain events, hurricanes, more frequent and severe drought, and that the ocean will warm and will become more acidic. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff further claims that, due to its extensive coastline, significant low-lying land areas, and considerable coastal development, Rhode Island is particularly vulnerable to the effects of sea level rise. Id. ¶ 203. It maintains that the impacts of climate change will "jeopardize State-owned or operated facilities critical for operations, utility services, and risk management, as well as real property and other assets that are essential to community health, safety, and well-being." Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff contends that the risk of damage specifically jeopardizes Rhode Island's roads and bridges, railroad systems, energy infrastructure, dams, ports, beaches, water supply, wastewater management, storm water/flood management infrastructure, residential and commercial property, aquatic resources, marshes and coastal wetlands, and terrestrial natural resources. Id. ¶ 212 (a-m).

Thus, Plaintiff contends that the simultaneous production, promotion, and marketing of fossil fuel products, combined with the concealment of the known dangers of those products, as well as Defendants' promotion of anti-science campaigns, have actually and proximately caused injury to Rhode Island. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff seeks recovery based upon several legal theories, namely, Public Nuisance; Strict Liability for Failure to Warn; Strict Liability for Design Defect; Negligent Design Defect; Negligent Failure to Warn; Trespass; Impairment of Public Trust Resources; and Violations of the State Environmental Rights Act. Id. ¶ 11.

Before this Court are Defendants' two joint motions to dismiss the action. First, Defendants seek to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), alleging a lack of personal jurisdiction. In response, Plaintiff seeks to conduct jurisdictional discovery to obtain factual information to demonstrate that Defendants have the requisite minimum contacts to subject them to the jurisdiction of the Court. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion to compel jurisdictional discovery. Defendants maintain that such discovery is unwarranted and will not provide Plaintiff with sufficient facts to support a finding of jurisdiction.

Second, Defendants have filed a joint motion to dismiss the Complaint under Super. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

On June 24, 2020, at the request of this Court, the parties appeared for hearing^[4] to respond to the following questions: (1) whether the Court should delay consideration of Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss under Super. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) until the United States Supreme Court and the Rhode Island Supreme Court respectively rule on similar questions of personal jurisdiction currently pending before them;^[5] (2) if so, whether the Court also should delay its consideration of Plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery; and (3) whether the Court must decide the jurisdic-tional issues raised by Defendants before considering Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under Super. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

II

Standard of Review

The questions before the Court are within the discretionary authority of the hearing justice. Our Supreme Court has '"defined the exercise of judicial power as the control of a decision in a case or the interference with its progress, or the alteration of the decision once made."' Quattrucci v. Lombardi, No. 2017-248-Appeal, No. 2017-249-Appeal (KM 13-1127), 2020 WL 3525539, at *4 (R.I. June 30, 2020) (emphasis added) (quoting Lemoine v. Martineau, 115 R.I. 233, 238, 342 A.2d 616, 620 (1975)). Accordingly, it is well established that "[c]ontrol of judicial dockets rests in the court." State v. Johnson, 116 R.I. 449, 456, 358 A.2d 370, 374 (1976) (citing Lemoine, 115 R.I. at 239, 342 A.2d at 620).

The Court has discretion to issue a continuance, so long as it is with "sound discretion, exercised not arbitrarily or willfully, but with just regard to what is right and equitable under the circumstances and the law." Strzebinska v. Jary, 58 R.I. 496, 193 A. 747, 749 (1937); see also State v. Allan, 433 A.2d 222, 225 (R.I. 1981) (stating a decision to grant or deny a continuance "will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion"). The term "discretion" signifies "an action taken by the trial justice in the light of reason. Due regard is given for what is right and equitable under all of the circumstances and the law." Allan, 433 A.2d at 225 (citing Hartman v. Carter, 121 R.I. 1, 4, 393 A.2d 1102, 1105 (1978); Strzebinska, 58 R.I....