HARTFORD, Conn. (Legal Newsline) – A Connecticut federal judge will let Second Circuit judges decide whether to freeze the State’s climate change lawsuit against Exxon.
But Judge Janet Hall doesn’t think Exxon will find more sympathy at the appeals court than it found in her courtroom, she declared June 11, nine days after sending state Attorney General William Tong’s lawsuit back to state court – where he and the private lawyers he hired prefer it.
Exxon can mount a better defense in federal court and wrote in a motion for a stay of Hall’s remand order that the Second Circuit will agree that the case involves federal questions of law despite only making claims for relief under state law.
“The court denies the Motion to Stay and leaves the determination of a stay pending the appeal to the Second Circuit to decide,” Hall ordered. “This court does not view the defendant’s argument in support as showing a strong likelihood on the merits, or even a likelihood of success with the balance of the equities in the defendant’s favor.”
It’s the latest battleground for the company as it fights to keep the several climate change cases filed by government officials who teamed with private lawyers in federal court, where it can mount a better defense.
The company says the issues presented in the litigation concerns federal issues, even though public officials like Tong and firms like Sher Edling crafted their complaints to only make claims under state laws.
Two judges have decided motions to dismiss in federal court, and both dismissed the cases. But several plaintiffs successfully argued to get their cases back to state court, though the U.S. Supreme Court has put a hold on at least four of them.
Despite that delay, Judge Hall felt she saw all she needed to, ruling that Tong’s case should be heard in state court. Exxon feels it has the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on its side.
“The Second Circuit will review all of ExxonMobil’s grounds for federal jurisdiction and will likely find federal jurisdiction on one or more such grounds,” the motion says.
“First, it is likely that the Second Circuit will find that this case necessarily implicates the federal common law, just as it did recently in (New York City’s climate change lawsuit, which was dismissed by a federal judge). In doing so, it will clarify the full extent of the well-pleaded complaint rule, the artful-pleading doctrine, and other uncertainties noted by this Court in its Remand order…
“Second, the Second Circuit will likely find that the public-policy judgments necessary in the adjudication of the Attorney General’s claims necessarily implicate a substantial question of federal law.”
Connecticut accused ExxonMobil of mounting a decades-long campaign to downplay the risks of burning hydrocarbon fuels and “greenwashing” its own image to mislead consumers into thinking the company is “environmentally conscious.” The state’s theory is that Connecticut consumers bought more of ExxonMobil’s products as a result, releasing dangerous greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and heating the planet. The state wants the company to disgorge profits and fund an “extensive education campaign to remedy the harm inflicted by decades of disinformation.”
ExxonMobil removed the case to federal court in October, saying the case represented the “latest product of a multi-year plan” to change federal energy policy.
Judge Hall cited the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” Supreme Court doctrine that makes plaintiffs the masters of their complaints and severely restricts the ability of federal judges to assert jurisdiction over cases unless they present exclusively federal questions.
“In a world without the well-pleaded complaint rule, ExxonMobil’s position would be straightforward: federal courts should have jurisdiction over important issues of federal law,” she wrote. “The problem for ExxonMobil is that the well-pleaded complaint rule does in fact exist.”