NEW YORK (Legal Newsline) – The world's largest oil companies have responded to the city of New York’s allegations against them that they have helped cause global warming.
The city of New York filed a lawsuit against BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell in January, and Chevron, Conoco Phillips and Exxon filed a motion to dismiss with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 4.
In their motion, the defendants argued the global warming allegations from NYC are under federal common law and should be dismissed because the Environmental Protection Agency is tasked with regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
The defendants also stated several federal guidelines block the city of New York from making its claims. They first stated the claims obstruct the authority of federal foreign affairs and that the Commerce Clause and the Due Process and Takings Clauses ban the plaintiff from making its claims concerning production and promotion.
The defendants also argued the lawsuit doesn’t fall within viable state-law claims as the accusations don’t have any standing in New York nuisance or trespass law. Defendants stated the city does not prove if and how the defendants negatively impacted global warming and injuries to the city as well as lack of justification or permission.
They pointed out the in pari delicto doctrine blocks the plaintiff’s claims as well. That regulation states, “The doctrine prohibits one party from suing another where the plaintiff as an ‘active, voluntary participant in the unlawful activity that is the subject of the suit,” according to the motion.
The defendants added the city authorized the activities it is now suing the defendant for such as investing in fossil fuel companies. They added New Yorkers use fossil fuels daily.
Another point the defendants makes is the plaintiff’s novel claims do not address a “justiciable case or controversy” and does not bring up any non-justiciable political questions. Ultimately, the defendants stated the plaintiff’s claims violate Article III that requires an injury to be “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” The defendants pointed out the plaintiff’s accusations are broad and general.
The city of New York has since responded to the defendant’s motion, also filed on May 4. It refuted the defendants’ federal common law argument and stated its claims are practicable under New York law. It also pointed out it has properly stated federal common law claim. It argued it has identified nuisance and trespass claims that are related to New York law, as well as properly alleged proximate cause.
It also challenged the defendants' claims that it did not plead lack of justification and added the in pari delicto regulation as well as federal doctrine does not block it from filing the claims. It reiterated that it has standing and requested the court to deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Other climate change lawsuits are playing out in San Francisco, Boulder, Colo., and King County, Wash.