SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) - Rather than continue in a federal court, a fishermen's group suing Big Oil over climate change would prefer to drop the matter entirely.
The decision by the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations illustrates the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to keep other cases brought by states, cities and counties (and the private lawyers they hired on contingency fees) in state courts, where they have a greater chance of success.
Companies like Exxon and Chevron argued the lawsuits, which seek the costs associated with confronting climate change symptoms like rising sea levels, involve issues so widespread that federal courts should have retained jurisdiction over them.
At the outset of the litigation, federal judges in San Francisco and New York tossed lawsuits there as attempts to regulate the industry. But later, the plaintiffs won their arguments in appeals courts that their suits should have been heard in state court, because they alleged state-law public nuisance.
The difference in PCFFA's lawsuit is San Francisco federal judge Vince Chhabria ruled on Dec. 14 that it was essentially a class action, and the 2005 Class Action Fairness Act allows removal to federal court of the case.
PCFFA said it was seeking compensation for its members. Chhabria said that makes it a representative action authorized by section 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
"A representative action under section 382 seeking damages on behalf of absent class members resembles a damages class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," Chhabria ruled.
"As the California courts have explained, an action of this type is subject to many Rule 23-like requirements."
Federal courts hear class actions in which more than $5 million is in controversy. The PCFFA claimed it is only seeking injunctive relief, but Chhabria said that's not true - that its complaint seeks damages.
"In truth, what happened here is that the Federation made a mistake," Chhabria wrote. "It strongly prefers to be in state court, but it filed a complaint that was removable under CAFA."
PCCFA voluntarily dismissed the case the same day as Chhabria's ruling. Other climate change plaintiffs have done so, then re-filed in state courts and crafted their complaints to keep them out of federal court.
Chevron spokesperson Bill Turenne said in response to the dismissal that climate change requires a coordinated policy response, "not a jumble of baseless lawsuits."
"As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals put it when affirming dismissal of a similar case, 'such a sprawling case is simply beyond the limits of state law,'" he added.