MINNEAPOLIS (Legal Newsline) – Like other climate change plaintiffs, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison wants his case heard by a state judge rather than federal.
Ellison’s office on Sept. 10 filed its motion to remand the lawsuit against Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute and three Koch Industries entities. The suit alleges they deceived the public about climate change science in order to safeguard their business interests.
Exxon calls the lawsuit the culmination of a plan concocted by plaintiffs lawyers, activists and special interests to force an agenda that has gained no traction with lawmakers or regulators.
In the other climate change cases filed in places like California, Baltimore, Rhode Island and Colorado, the key issue being litigated so far is state vs. federal jurisdiction.
“Five district courts and three appellate courts have rejected Defendants’ attempts to remove substantially similar cases,” Ellison’s motion says. “These cases considered and rejected six of the seven grounds for removal Defendants assert here…”
The lawsuit was said to be put in Ellison’s head by a group called Fresh Energy last year shortly after he was sworn in. The AG – and several of his colleagues – has taken in two assistants who are paid by climate change advocate Michael Bloomberg, through a fellowship program at New York University School of Law.
A resulting lawsuit against Exxon that claimed it misled its shareholders about the impacts climate change would have on the company failed spectacularly in a New York state court.
Exxon is also fighting to have the other climate change lawsuits filed by private lawyers working for government entities on contingency fees heard in federal court.
When two federal judges asserted jurisdiction and ruled on motions to dismiss, they granted them on the grounds that plaintiffs are trying to impose climate change policy on the rest of the world – a job more appropriate for regulators and lawmakers.
Plaintiffs will likely have more success in state courts, if they are allowed to litigate there. Ellison says his complaint only involves alleged violations of state law and does not require the disposition of any federal issues.
It’s also not a class action, he says, and not subject to the Class Action Fairness Act, which allows defendants to remove certain class actions to federal court.
“Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, this case does not seek to limit the extraction of fossil fuels or otherwise regulate greenhouse gas emissions,” the motion says.
“Rather, the complaint seeks damages, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits and an order enjoining Defendants from continued violations…”