Before-and-After Images Show Ongoing Flood Disaster in Nebraska and Iowa

2019 National Hydrologic Assessment

Green New Deal vote tests Dem unity in Senate


This will end our look at climate litigation against the oil companies. I want to move to the flood cases before we run out the clock on the semester. These deal with state law nuisance claims and show the split in authority within the 9th Circuit.

County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. 2017 WL 3699867 (N.D.Cal.) – removal order

Team 1

The key to being dismissed for federal preemption is to be in federal court. The plaintiffs filed in state court and this is the order of remand to federal court. What are the defendants’ arguments for removal, i.e., why do they stay that plaintiff’s claims must implicitly depend on federal law? I would like to hear from the team members who missed class last Thursday, since they did not get a chance to present.

County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. – Team 1 Powerpoint


Cty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 294 F. Supp. 3d 934 (N.D. Cal. 2018) – remand to state courts

Team 2

How does the trial court justify remand, i.e., what are the unique state claims and the rationale for why they are not preempted, at least at this time.

City of Oakland v. BP P.L.C., 325 F. Supp. 3d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2018)

Team 3

This case dismisses the state claims as preempted by federal law. What is the court’s rationale? Be through – this will be key in the long term for state-based climate cases. (You do not need to rehash the court’s climate science – this is the judge that had the science hearing,)

City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c., No. C 17-06011 WHA, 2018 WL 3609055 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2018)

Team 4

This is an additional order that finds that there is no personal jurisdiction against several of the oil companies. Give us a good analysis of why – if the plaintiffs cannot get jurisdiction, their attempt to get enough companies in court to have a significant share of emitters is doomed.