(C) Common Dreams
This story was originally published by Common Dreams and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP [1]
[]
Date: 2025-01
07/29/2022 Not Available Download Mandate issued.
07/07/2022 Opinion Download Remand orders affirmed. Ninth Circuit Affirmed Remand Orders in Honolulu and Maui Cases. Noting that it was not writing on a “blank slate” and citing its earlier decision in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. as well as decisions of the First, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that fossil fuel company defendants could not show federal jurisdiction in climate change lawsuits brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui. The Ninth Circuit therefore affirmed the remand of the cases to state court. At issue in these appeals were jurisdiction under the federal-officer removal statute, federal enclave jurisdiction, and jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). Regarding federal-officer removal jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit rejected arguments that the defendants acted under federal officers in connection with production of oil and gas under the Defense Production Act, when they repaid offshore oil leases in kind and contracted with the government to operate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, when they conducted offshore oil operations, or when they operated the Elk Hills oil reserve. The Ninth Circuit further found that even if the defendants did operate under a federal officer, they failed to cite federal defenses that stemmed from official duties and were colorable. Regarding federal enclave jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit said the defendants’ oil and gas operations on federal enclaves were too remote from the plaintiffs’ asserted injuries (i.e., climate change harms arising from the defendants’ allegedly deceptive conduct). Regarding OCSLA jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit found that the companies’ exploration, development, and production on the Outer Continental Shelf was “too attenuated and remote” from the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. The court said ruling for the defendants would “dramatically expand” OCSLA’s scope and lead to “unstable” results.
05/20/2022 Letter Download The plaintiffs argued that in San Mateo the Ninth Circuit had rejected the same arguments for OCSLA jurisdiction that the defendants advanced in their May 4, 2022 notice of supplemental authority. The plaintiffs also argued that the San Mateo OCSLA analysis confirmed that the defendants failed to establish the “nexus” prong for federal-officer removal, and that the defendants’ new evidence “rehashes” the same sorts of arrangements and relationships that the San Mateo decision rejected as a basis for federal-officer removal.
05/04/2022 Letter Download Defendants-appellants filed notice of supplemental authority (County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.). After the Ninth Circuit affirmed the remand orders in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., energy industry defendants-appellants submitted a letter to the Ninth Circuit in Honolulu’s and Maui’s cases arguing that the “significantly expanded record” in these cases included evidence that cured deficiencies that the San Mateo identified in the basis for federal-officer removal. The companies also said expert evidence in the record in the Honolulu and Maui cases supported removal under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).
02/22/2022 Order Download Submission of the case vacated and further proceedings held in abeyance pending the issuance of the mandate in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.
02/22/2022 Order Download Submission of the case vacated and further proceedings held in abeyance. Ninth Circuit Appeal of Remand Order Will Await Outcome of County of San Mateo Appeal. The fossil fuel companies’ appeals of the remand orders in Honolulu’s case and the County of Maui’s case are still pending in the Ninth Circuit, which heard oral argument on February 17, 2022. On February 22, the Ninth Circuit vacated the submission of the case and ordered that further proceedings be held in abeyance until the mandate is issued in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., in which the Ninth Circuit will review the entire remand order—not just the federal-officer removal issue—following the Supreme Court’s remand of the case after the Court’s decision in BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore.
02/14/2022 Letter Download Response filed by defendants-appellants to plaintiffs-appellees' citation of supplemental authorities (Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County case).
02/14/2022 Letter Download Defendants-appellants filed response to plaintiffs-appellees' citation of supplemental authorities (Tenth Circuit decision in Boulder case).
02/09/2022 Letter Download Plaintiffs-appellees submitted letter regarding supplemental authority (Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County case).
02/09/2022 Letter Download Plaintiffs-appellees submitted supplemental authorities (Tenth Circuit decision in Boulder case).
02/02/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants in response to plaintiffs-appellants' citation of supplemental authority regarding federal-officer jurisdiction.
02/02/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants in response to plaintiffs-appellees citation of supplemental authority regarding federal-officer jurisdiction.
02/02/2022 Notice Court provided notice of oral argument on Thursday, February 17, 2022.
01/25/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants in response to plaintiffs-appellees' citation of supplemental authorities regarding federal-officer jurisdiction.
01/25/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants in response to the plaintiffs-appellees' citation of supplemental authorities regarding federal-officer removal.
01/24/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees to provide notice of supplemental authority on federal-officer removal.
01/24/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees to provide notice of supplemental authority regarding federal-officer jurisdiction.
01/18/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees to provide notice of supplemental authority regarding federal-officer removal and federal-enclave jurisdiction.
01/18/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees to provide notice of supplemental authority regarding federal-officer removal.
01/18/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding supplemental authority (remand order in Delaware case).
01/11/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by defendants-appellants to provide notice of supplemental authority regarding federal-officer removal.
01/06/2022 Letter Download Supplemental authority submitted by plaintiff-appellees regarding federal officer removal arguments.
11/24/2021 Reply Download Reply filed by appellants in support of their motion to take judicial notice.
11/18/2021 Response Download Response filed by appellees to appellants' motion for judicial notice. The plaintiffs responded that the Ninth Circuit could take judicial notice of the existence of the transcripts but could not “take the additional step of drawing inferences against Appellees as to disputed issues based on the transcripts’ contents.” The plaintiffs stated that they had never “conceded” that their claims arose from defendants’ products and not from their alleged misrepresentations.
11/08/2021 Motion Download Motion to take judicial notice filed by appellants. The companies filed a motion for the Ninth Circuit to take judicial notice of two state court transcripts, which they said included statements by plaintiffs’ counsel that the theory of liability in the plaintiffs’ lawsuits encompassed increased combustion of fossil fuel products. The defendants said these statements had “a clear and ‘direct’ connection” to the jurisdictional questions at issue in these cases because the plaintiffs argued that the “allegedly exclusive focus on misrepresentation” as the basis for their theory of liability prevented federal-officer removal or removal based on the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
11/08/2021 Reply Download Reply brief filed by appellants. Briefing on the fossil fuel companies’ appeals of the remand orders in Honolulu’s and Maui County’s cases was completed on November 8. The Ninth Circuit announced that oral argument would be held on February 18, 2022 if the court decides to hear oral arguments.
09/24/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Robert Brulle et al. in support of plaintiffs-appellees and affirmance.
09/24/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by municipal organizations as amici curiae in support of plaintiffs-appellees.
09/24/2021 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Charles Fletcher in support of appellees and remand.
09/24/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Hawai'i State Association of Counties as amicus curiae in support of appellees and affirmation.
09/24/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by legal scholars as amici curiae in support of plaintiffs-appellees.
09/24/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Hawaii and other states as amici curiae in support of the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui.
09/17/2021 Brief Download Answering brief filed. Honolulu and Maui filed their answering brief in the Ninth Circuit urging the court to affirm the remand orders in their cases. They argued that none of the requirements for removal under the federal-officer removal statute were met, and that neither the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act nor federal enclave jurisdiction provided a basis for federal jurisdiction. Six amicus briefs were filed in support of Honolulu and Maui.
07/26/2021 Amicus Brief Download Amici curiae brief filed by General (Retired) Richard B. Myers and Admiral (Retired) Michael G. Mullen in support of defendants-appellants. A retired general and a retired admiral wrote in an amicus brief that they “strongly believe … important national and international policy issues should be addressed to Congress and the Executive Branch, not adjudicated piecemeal across the country in a multitude of state courts.”
07/26/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as amicus curiae in support of appellants and reversal.
07/19/2021 Brief Download Opening brief filed by appellants. Briefing began in fossil fuel companies’ appeals of the remand orders in cases brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui. The companies argued that the actions were removable under the federal-officer removal statute, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and federal enclave jurisdiction. They also preserved their argument that Honolulu’s and Maui’s claims necessarily arose under federal law because they related to interstate and international air emissions, an argument rejected by the Ninth Circuit in City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c., as well as the argument that the plaintiffs’ claims depend on the resolution of substantial federal questions related to the federal government’s exclusive control over navigable waters of the United States, issues of treaty interpretation, issues of constitutional law, and federal relations.
05/11/2021 Order Download Motion to extend time for filing opening brief granted. The Ninth Circuit granted fossil fuel companies’ motion to extend their time for filing opening briefs in their appeals of remand orders in cases brought by the County of Maui and the City and County of Honolulu. The parties agreed that the deadline for opening briefs should be extended to July 19, 2021 because the Supreme Court’s decision in Baltimore would determine the scope of issues before the Ninth Circuit.
05/10/2021 Response Download Non-opposition filed by plaintiff to defendants' motion to extend time to file opening brief.
04/30/2021 Motion Download Motion for extension of time to file opening brief filed by defendants. Fossil fuel companies appealing the District of Hawaii’s remand order in cases brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui asked the Ninth Circuit for a 60-day extension of time in which to file their opening brief. They sought the extension to allow them to address the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, which the companies said would determine whether the defendants were limited to contesting only the district court’s rejection of jurisdiction under the federal-officer removal statute. Maui and Honolulu oppose the extension request.
03/13/2021 Order Download Emergency motion to stay the remand order denied. Ninth Circuit Declined to Stay Remand Order in Honolulu and Maui Cases. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied fossil fuel companies’ emergency motions for stay pending appeal of a district court order remanding cases brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui seeking climate change damages. The Ninth Circuit found that the companies failed to establish irreparable injury with arguments regarding increased litigation burdens, possible inefficiencies, and the possibility that a state court could “irrevocably” adjudicate the plaintiffs’ claims while the appeals were pending. The Ninth Circuit also found that the companies did not make a sufficient showing on the merits, given the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. and City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c.
03/12/2021 Reply Download Reply filed in support of the emergency motion to stay the remand order.
03/10/2021 Response Download Response filed by City & County of Honolulu to emergency motion to stay the remand order.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://climatecasechart.com/case/city-county-of-honolulu-v-sunoco-lp/
Published and (C) by Common Dreams
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0..
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/commondreams/
