Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Cnty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.

Cnty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

April 19, 2022, Filed

No. 18-15499, No. 18-15502, No. 18-15503, No. 18-16376

Opinion

IKUTA, Circuit Judge:

This appeal requires us to determine whether a district court erred in remanding the plaintiffs' global-warming related complaints to state court after they were removed by the energy company defendants. On appeal, the defendants argue that the district court had removal jurisdiction over these complaints on multiple grounds, including federal question and federal enclave jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal officer removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), and admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). Because the district court did not err in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under any of these asserted grounds, we affirm.

The County of San Mateo, the County of Marin, and the City of Imperial Beach filed three materially similar complaints in California state court against more than 30 energy companies in July 2017.2 The complaints allege that the Energy Companies' "extraction, refining, and/or formulation of fossil fuel products; their introduction of fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce; their wrongful promotion [*13]  of their fossil fuel products and concealment of known hazards associated with use of those products; and their failure to pursue less hazardous alternatives available to them; is a substantial factor in causing the increase in global mean temperature and consequent increase in global mean sea surface height." Further, according to the complaints, the Counties "have already incurred, and will foreseeably continue to incur, injuries and damages because of sea level rise caused by [the Energy Companies'] conduct." Such "sea level rise-related injuries and damages" include flooding that causes injury and damages to real property and its improvements, and prevents the "free passage on, use of, and normal enjoyment of that real property, or permanently [destroys] it." For instance, the Counties allege that Surfer's Beach near the city of Half Moon Bay "has lost 140 feet of accessible beach since 1964 due to erosion, which has been exacerbated and substantially contributed to by sea level rise and increased extreme weather." Other injuries caused by sea level rise, according to the Counties, include "infrastructural repair and reinforcement of roads and beach access." Based on these allegations, [*14]  the complaints assert causes of action for public and private nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, strict liability for design defect, negligence, negligent failure to warn, and trespass.

The Energy Companies removed the three complaints to federal court, asserting multiple bases for subject matter jurisdiction: (1) the Counties' claims raise disputed and substantial federal issues, see Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 125 S. Ct. 2363, 162 L. Ed. 2d 257 (2005); (2) the Counties' claims are "completely preempted" by federal law; (3) the Counties' claims arose on "federal enclaves"; (4) the Counties' claims arise out of operations on the outer Continental Shelf, see 43 U.S.C. § 1349(b); (5) the Counties' claims arise from actions that were taken by the Energy Companies pursuant to a federal officer's directions, see 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a); and (6) the Counties' claims are related to bankruptcy cases, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1452(a), 1334(b).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10477 *; __ F.4th __; 2022 WL 1151275

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, individually and on behalf of the People of the State of California, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION; BP PLC; BP AMERICA, INC.; SHELL PLC; SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC; CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION; TOTAL E&P USA, INC.; TOTAL SPECIALTIES USA, INC.; ARCH COAL INC.; ENI OIL & GAS, INC.; RIO TINTO ENERGY AMERICA, INC.; RIO TINTO MINERALS, INC.; RIO TINTO SERVICES, INC.; ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION; REPSOL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA CORP.; REPSOL TRADING USA CORP.; MARATHON OIL COMPANY; MARATHON OIL CORPORATION; MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP.; HESS CORP.; DEVON ENERGY CORP.; DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, LP; ENCANA CORPORATION; APACHE CORP., Defendants-Appellants.CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, individually and on behalf of the People of the State of California, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION; BP PLC; BP AMERICA, INC.; SHELL PLC; SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC; CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION; TOTAL E&P USA, INC.; TOTAL SPECIALTIES USA, INC.; ARCH COAL INC.; ENI OIL & GAS, INC.; RIO TINTO ENERGY AMERICA, INC.; RIO TINTO MINERALS, INC.; RIO TINTO SERVICES, INC.; ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION; REPSOL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA CORP.; REPSOL TRADING USA CORP.; MARATHON OIL COMPANY; MARATHON OIL CORPORATION; MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP.; HESS CORP.; DEVON ENERGY CORP.; DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, LP; ENCANA CORPORATION; APACHE CORP., Defendants-Appellants.COUNTY OF MARIN, individually and on behalf of the People of the State of California, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION; BP PLC; BP AMERICA, INC.; SHELL PLC; SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC; CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION; TOTAL E&P USA, INC.; TOTAL SPECIALTIES USA, INC.; ARCH COAL INC.; ENI OIL & GAS, INC.; RIO TINTO ENERGY AMERICA, INC.; RIO TINTO MINERALS, INC.; RIO TINTO SERVICES, INC.; ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION; REPSOL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA CORP.; REPSOL TRADING USA CORP.; MARATHON OIL COMPANY; MARATHON OIL CORPORATION; MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP.; HESS CORP.; DEVON ENERGY CORP.; DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, LP; ENCANA CORPORATION; APACHE CORP., Defendants-Appellants.COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of The People of the State of California; CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, a municipal corporation, individually and on behalf of The People of the State of California; CITY OF RICHMOND, individually and on behalf of The People of the State of California, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION; BP PLC; BP AMERICA, INC.; SHELL PLC; SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC; CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION; TOTAL E&P USA, INC.; TOTAL SPECIALTIES USA, INC.; ARCH COAL INC.; ENI OIL & GAS, INC.; RIO TINTO ENERGY AMERICA, INC.; RIO TINTO MINERALS, INC.; RIO TINTO SERVICES, INC.; ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION; REPSOL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA CORP.; REPSOL TRADING USA CORP.; MARATHON OIL COMPANY; MARATHON OIL CORPORATION; MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP.; HESS CORP.; DEVON ENERGY CORP.; DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, LP; ENCANA CORPORATION; APACHE CORP., Defendants-Appellants.

Prior History:  [*1] On Remand from the United States Supreme Court. D.C. No. 3:17-cv-04929-VC, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-04934-VC, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-04935-VC, D.C. Nos. 3:18-cv-00450-VC, 3:18-cv-00458-VC, 3:18-cv-00732-VC.

County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 294 F. Supp. 3d 934, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49197, 2018 WL 1414774 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 16, 2018)

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

energy company, complaints, Energy, federal enclaves, federal official, federal law, outer continental shelf, district court, removal, federal court, state court, injuries, oil, confirmed, nexus, cases, bankruptcy case, cause of action, remand order, lessee, fuel, subject matter jurisdiction, lease, federal jurisdiction, private person, well-pleaded, maritime, products, cleaned, federal government

Civil Procedure, Removal, Postremoval Remands, Appellate Review, Specific Cases Removed, Cases Involving Federal Officers, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Preponderance of Evidence, Jurisdiction, Jurisdictional Sources, Statutory Sources, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Federal Questions, Well Pleaded Complaint Rule, Constitutional Law, Congressional Duties & Powers, Lower Federal Courts, Federal & State Interrelationships, Federal Common Law, Preemption, Supremacy Clause, Federal Preemption, District of Columbia & Federal Property, Copyright Law, Constitutional Copyright Protections, Copyright Clause, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate, Copyright & Patent Clause, War Powers Clause, Admiralty & Maritime Law, Maritime Workers' Claims, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Energy & Utilities Law, Discovery, Exploration & Recovery, Exploration Obligations & Rights, Business & Corporate Compliance, Energy & Utilities Law, Federal Oil & Gas Leases, Local & State Regulation, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Workers' Compensation & SSDI, Pipelines & Transportation, Pipelines, Offshore Gas & Oil Pipelines, International Law, Territorial Boundaries, Real Property Law, Water Rights, Accretion, Avulsion & Reliction, Environmental Law, Clean Water Act, Coverage & Definitions, Navigable Waters, Transportation Law, Water Transportation, Waterways, Practice & Procedure, Choice of Law, Statute of Limitations, Time Limitations, Federal Government, Claims By & Against, Utility Companies, Buying & Selling of Power, Bankruptcy Related Claims, Bankruptcy Law, Procedural Matters, Noncore Proceedings, Appellate Jurisdiction, State Court Review, Plans, Plan Confirmation, Effects of Confirmation, Elements for Removal, Removability