ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Legal Newsline) - Oil companies say a Maryland judge is keeping a climate lawsuit by Annapolis and Anne Arundel County alive for the wrong reason while ignoring a fellow judge’s dismissal of a nearly identical case by the City of Baltimore.
Judge Steven Platt will hold a hearing today on motions to dismiss by Chevron, BP, Exxon Mobil and other companies sued for allegedly causing global warming. They say Platt confused a central question by ruling the lawsuit “belongs in state court,” when he should have ruled on whether federal air pollution law preempts the state action entirely.
The question of jurisdiction – whether a federal or state court can deliver the remedy the plaintiffs are seeking – has already been resolved by multiple federal courts in favor of hearing climate lawsuits in state court, the oil companies say. Meanwhile, Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Videtta Brown ruled in July that even though Baltimore’s climate suit belonged in her court, it should be dismissed on the merits because federal law governs claims over interstate air pollution.
“Simply because a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear a meritless case doesn’t mean that case suddenly has merit when it is remanded to state court,” the oil companies argue in their motion to dismiss.
In her July dismissal order, Judge Brown found that “artful pleading” couldn’t save Baltimore’s climate lawsuit since it was really seeking money to address harms the city ascribed to global CO2 emissions. Such emissions are governed by the federal Clean Air Act, she ruled.
Baltimore and Annapolis, like many other government plaintiffs, are represented by Sher Edling, a private law firm operating under a contingency-fee contracts. After losing several important cases in federal court, they retooled their litigation strategy to file suits based on state public-nuisance and consumer deception claims.
Their main claim is that oil companies hid information from consumers about the global warming effects of greenhouse gases – despite the fact such information has been widely known and discussed by scientists and politicians at least since the early 1900s – causing people to burn more hydrocarbon fuels than they otherwise would have.
"The explanation by Baltimore that it only seeks to address and hold Defendants accountable for a deceptive misinformation campaign is simply a way to get in the back door what they cannot get in the front door,” Judge Brown ruled.
Judge Platt ignored the Baltimore ruling, saying only that the case could continue in his court. The defendants will ask the judge to at least stay the Annapolis case until a Maryland appeals court decides whether to uphold the dismissal of the Baltimore climate suit. If that happens, Annapolis will have to concede defeat on its identical claims, the oil companies say.