The Newest Climate Change Battle - Jurisdiction
Mayor of Balt. v. BP P.L.C., Civil Action No.ELH-18-2357,
2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97438 (D. Md. June 10, 2019).
By: Alyssa Conti
In August2018, the mayor and city council of Baltimore brought a suit against twenty-sixmultinational oil and gas companies, alleging “that defendants havesubstantially contributed to greenhouse gas pollution, global warming, andclimate change” causing the city to sustain climate change-related injuries.[1]The claim, filed in the circuit court for Baltimore, asserted eight causes ofaction, all under Maryland law, but two defendants timely removed the case tofederal court. Defendants alleged “that the case concerns ‘global emissions’with ‘uniquely federal interests’ that implicate ‘bedrock federal-statedivisions of responsibility,’ supporting their claim with eight grounds forremoval.[2]The city, in turn, filed a motion to remand the case back to state court.
On June10, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland heldthat it did not have jurisdiction over the claims and remanded the case back tostate court. As the court pointed out, district courts are courts of limitedjurisdiction, possessing only the power granted to them by Congress and theConstitution. Federal courts must presume they do not have jurisdiction absentproof otherwise by the removing party. Therefore, the federal court here wasforced to address all eight grounds for removal submitted by the defendants inorder to determine if it could exercise jurisdiction over the case.
Four ofthe defendants’ eight grounds for removal are based in federal questionjurisdiction. These are: “(1) the City's public nuisance claim is necessarilygoverned by federal common law; (2) the City's claims raise disputed andsubstantial issues of federal law; (3) the City's claims are completelypreempted by the Clean Air Act,[3]and the foreign affairs doctrine; and (4) the City's claims are based onconduct or injuries that occurred on federal enclaves.”[4]Outside of a “special and small category of cases,” governance of a case underfederal question jurisdiction is entirely based upon a plaintiff’s complaint.If a plaintiff only alleges violations under state law, state courts willnecessarily have jurisdiction. In such cases, federal courts lack the power topreside over the claim. Cases that do not fall into this category require theremoving party to prove one of two circumstances: (1) federal law is anecessary element of the claim, or (2) Congress intended for federal law toprovide the exclusive cause of action.
Concisely,the court found that nothing in the City’s complaint requires analysis offederal statutes, as all the allegations stemmed from Maryland law. Further,the court found no federal statute that explicitly stated its intent toexclusively govern any of the issues raised in the plaintiffs’ complaint. (Asan alternative argument, the defendants attempted to allege that because someof the defendant companies conducted operations on federally-owned land, thefederal court was required to exercise jurisdiction. However, the court quicklydisposed of that claim for many reasons, not the least of which being that theplaintiffs’ claim specifically excluded any claim of tortious conduct onfederally-owned land.)
Furthermore,the court individually rejected the final four defense claims. The first ofthese claims was that the federal court has jurisdiction of the claim underOCSLA. In response, the court found “defendants offer no basis to enable thisCourt to conclude that the City's claims for injuries stemming from climatechange would not have occurred but for defendants' extraction activities on theOCS.”[5]The second of the outlier claims argued the claim was removable under thefederal officer removal statute. However, the closest the defendants came to showingthat federal officers directed their actions was through the minimal purchaseof oil and gas from one of the twenty-six defendants. The court found thisargument lacking, as well. The third claim in this set was that the bankruptcyremoval statute permits federal jurisdiction. Pertaining to this claim, thecourt found that defendants failed to show the required close nexus between thebankruptcy proceedings in question and the current claim. The court furtherstated that even if there were an appropriate connection, the case would beexempt from removal “under [28 U.S.C.S.] § 1452 as an exercise of the City’spolice or regulatory power.”[6]Finally, the defendants asserted the court’s jurisdiction under admiralty law.However, the court, choosing not to explicitly unpack that complicated issue,relied upon jurisprudence that admiralty jurisdiction on its own is not enoughto remove a case to federal court -- there must also be an independent basisfor removal (such as diversity). Finding no such basis, the court struck downthe defendants’ final argument for federal removal and remanded the case backto state court.
[1] Mayor of Balt. v. BP P.L.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97438(D. Md. June 10, 2019), at *7-8.
[2] Mayor of Balt. v. BP P.L.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97438 (D. Md. June 10,2019), at *8-9 (internalcitations omitted).
[3] 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. (2018).
[4] Mayor of Balt. v. BP P.L.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97438 (D. Md. June 10,2019), at *12.
[5] Mayor of Balt. v. BP P.L.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97438 (D. Md. June 10,2019), at *50.
[6] Mayor of Balt. v. BP P.L.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97438 (D. Md. June 10,2019), at 60.
