Big Oil Firms Thwarted in Their Effort to Have California Court Dismiss Greenwashing Suit
The Superior Court of San Franisco County recently issued a ruling on a motion filed by major oil producers, including BP, Shell and ExxonMobil. The motion was filed to suppress climate change-related suits filed by the state of California; the cities of Oakland, Imperial Beach, San Francisco, Richmond, and Santa Cruz; and the counties of Santa Cruz, Marin, and San Mateo.
In their defense, the big oil firms claimed that the cases needed to be moved to a federal court because the California court lacked personal jurisdiction.
They argued that the state exercising jurisdiction over the cases was unreasonable and unfair, noting that claims made by the plaintiffs didn’t originate from the firms’ alleged contact with California. Judge Ethan Schulman, who presided over the case, ruled that the oil producers were subject to the state’s jurisdiction as the lawsuits were related to the defendants’ contacts with the state.
The judge explained that the sale and promotion of fossil fuel products by the oil companies in the state, the allegedly misleading statements on climate change, and the injuries the plaintiffs allegedly suffered in the state constituted requisite contact.
Schulman added that the companies had maintained a significant presence in the Golden State for decades by storing, processing, and moving their products through natural gas and oil refineries, as well as distribution and storage terminals and sites.
This ruling builds on a complaint filed by AG Rob Bonta earlier in the year, which sought to bill big oil firms for their greenwashing practices.
It is the latest development in a fight involving dozens of municipalities, cities, and states, all focused on holding big oil firms accountable for the role they played in propelling climate change and associated natural disasters.
Earlier this year, the attorney general announced that he was committed to making 6 corporations give up profits they illegally obtained via deceptive greenwashing. The corporations in question including the American Petroleum Institute, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil.
Bonta’s complaint is part of a suit initiated in September of last year which claims that the companies took part in a years-long deception campaign focused on hiding the link between fossil fuel combustion and climate change. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that this campaign ultimately contributed to disasters related to climate change throughout California.
It should be noted that the ruling didn’t include Chevron as California has general jurisdiction over the company. This is because the company’s operations are based in the Golden State.
As firms engaged in greenwashing are made accountable, it will leave entities, such as Reflex Advanced Technologies Corp. (CSE: RFLX) (OTCQB: RFLXF), which are making a genuine effort to incorporate ESG within their operations an opportunity to take the credit for their efforts and reap the rewards of walking that path.
NOTE TO INVESTORS: The latest news and updates relating to Reflex Advanced Materials Corp. (CSE: RFLX) (OTCQB: RFLXF) are available in the company’s newsroom at https://ibn.fm/RFLXF
Please see full terms of use and disclaimers on the ESGWireNews website applicable to all content provided by ESG, wherever published or re-published: https://www.ESGWireNews.com/Disclaimer
The Superior Court of San Franisco County recently issued a ruling on a motion filed by major oil producers, including BP, Shell and ExxonMobil. The motion was filed to suppress climate change-related suits filed by the state of California; the cities of Oakland, Imperial Beach, San Francisco, Richmond, and Santa Cruz; and the counties of Santa Cruz, Marin, and San Mateo.
In their defense, the big oil firms claimed that the cases needed to be moved to a federal court because the California court lacked personal jurisdiction.
They argued that the state exercising jurisdiction over the cases was unreasonable and unfair, noting that claims made by the plaintiffs didn’t originate from the firms’ alleged contact with California. Judge Ethan Schulman, who presided over the case, ruled that the oil producers were subject to the state’s jurisdiction as the lawsuits were related to the defendants’ contacts with the state.
The judge explained that the sale and promotion of fossil fuel products by the oil companies in the state, the allegedly misleading statements on climate change, and the injuries the plaintiffs allegedly suffered in the state constituted requisite contact.
Schulman added that the companies had maintained a significant presence in the Golden State for decades by storing, processing, and moving their products through natural gas and oil refineries, as well as distribution and storage terminals and sites.
This ruling builds on a complaint filed by AG Rob Bonta earlier in the year, which sought to bill big oil firms for their greenwashing practices.
It is the latest development in a fight involving dozens of municipalities, cities, and states, all focused on holding big oil firms accountable for the role they played in propelling climate change and associated natural disasters.
Earlier this year, the attorney general announced that he was committed to making 6 corporations give up profits they illegally obtained via deceptive greenwashing. The corporations in question including the American Petroleum Institute, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil.
Bonta’s complaint is part of a suit initiated in September of last year which claims that the companies took part in a years-long deception campaign focused on hiding the link between fossil fuel combustion and climate change. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that this campaign ultimately contributed to disasters related to climate change throughout California.
It should be noted that the ruling didn’t include Chevron as California has general jurisdiction over the company. This is because the company’s operations are based in the Golden State.
As firms engaged in greenwashing are made accountable, it will leave entities, such as Reflex Advanced Technologies Corp. (CSE: RFLX) (OTCQB: RFLXF), which are making a genuine effort to incorporate ESG within their operations an opportunity to take the credit for their efforts and reap the rewards of walking that path.
NOTE TO INVESTORS: The latest news and updates relating to Reflex Advanced Materials Corp. (CSE: RFLX) (OTCQB: RFLXF) are available in the company’s newsroom at https://ibn.fm/RFLXF
Please see full terms of use and disclaimers on the ESGWireNews website applicable to all content provided by ESG, wherever published or re-published: https://www.ESGWireNews.com/Disclaimer
