On October 3, 2025 a three judge panel for the Second Circuit ruled that Exxon Mobil Corporation, BP P.L.C., Shell Oil Company, and the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) must pay New York City (“the City”)’s attorneys’ fees and costs for advancing “absurd” arguments in opposing the City’s motion to remand to state court its suit for deceptive practices connected to climate change. City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 24-1568-CV (2d Cir. Oct. 3, 2025). This decision demonstrates that while parties may, at times, find success in advancing arguments that have been rejected by other courts, there are risks to advancing such arguments, including the risk of sanctions. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas, New York, Oil and Gas, Removal, Second Circuit

This post was written by MGKF summer associate Ella Souder

In March 2023, the State of New Jersey sued Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) in state court alleging that Dow was responsible for contamination caused by the chemical 1,4-dioxane which was used as an inhibitor in cleaning agents which Dow had sold decades earlier to, among others, the United States Government and military (the “Government”).  Dow removed the case to United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under the federal-officer removal statute, claiming that in producing this chemical it was “acting under” the auspices of the Government.  The District Court remanded the matter back to state court and on June 11, 2025 the Third Circuit affirmed the remand, holding that simply providing a product to the Government, even if the product complied with government specifications, was insufficient to implicate the federal-officer removal statute. See New Jersey v. Dow Chemical Co., 2025 WL 1646963 (3^rd Cir. 2025). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Contamination, Federal Jurisdiction, Federal Procedure, New Jersey, Removal, Third Circuit

On September 27, 2024, in Short Creek Development, LLC v. MFA Incorporated, No. 22-05021-CV-SW-WBG, 2024 WL 4326815 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 27, 2024), Magistrate Judge W. Brian Gaddy determined Plaintiffs’ claim under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) was barred by the applicable statute of limitations as “physical on-site construction of the remedial action” occurred more than six years prior to when Plaintiffs brought their lawsuit.  Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that costs related to a leachate collection system constructed approximately a year before the adoption of a Record of Decision (“ROD”) amendment outlining a permanent remedy for the Orongo-Duenweg Mining Belt Superfund Site (the “Site”) was the beginning of the six-year limitations period.   In doing so, the Court rejected adoption of a “bright-line” rule that remedial actions begun before adoption of a final remedial plan do not trigger the limitations period.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Cost Recovery, Groundwater, Landfill, Mining, Missouri, Remediation, Removal, Statute of Limitations, Superfund, Waste

In City of St. Charles v. Union Electric Company, the City of St. Charles (the “City”) brought common law claims sounding in negligence against Defendant Union Electric Company dba Ameren Missouri (“Ameren”), alleging that Ameren contaminated the City’s water supply, causing the City to incur millions in cleanup costs. No. 4:23-cv-00846-MTS (E.D. Mo. 2023). Ameren removed the case to federal court because it had been subject to an administrative settlement with EPA to perform the cleanup pursuant to CERCLA, but on November 2, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri remanded the case back to state court for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cost Recovery, Federal Jurisdiction, Removal, Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In September 2020, I wrote a Litigation Blog post about the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Nanouk v. United States, 974 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2020), which considered whether the so-called discretionary function exception barred tort claims against the government in connection with its lengthy, haphazard cleanup of a PCB hotspot near a Cold War-era military installation in Alaska. As I explained in that article, the exception bars tort claims that are based on discretionary government conduct—often following a policy-based analysis—but not claims that are based on simple negligence by government officials.  Because cleanup protocols for such bases were generally grounded in economic and national security policy, the Ninth Circuit held the exception barred all claims asserted by the plaintiff, whose adjacent land was impacted by the PCBs, except one claim: that after deciding to undertake the cleanup in 1990, the government simply failed to do it for 13 years. The Court remanded that issue, instructing the government to proffer evidence showing that the delay in effectuating the cleanup was likewise policy based.  On remand, the trial court addressed this issue in denying without prejudice the United States' Motion to Dismiss.  Nanouk v. United States, Case No. 3:15-cv-00221-RRB (Mar. 15, 2023).    Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Alaska, Case Update, Cleanup, Contamination, Federal Tort Claims Act, Negligence, Nuisance, Odors, PCBs, Property Damage, Remediation, Removal, Sovereign Immunity, Toxic Torts, Trespass

In Rio Linda Elverta Cmty. Water Dist. v. United States, No. 2:17-CV-01349, 2022 WL 3567143 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2022), the Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller, Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, dismissed  two California water utilities’ federal and state law claims against the federal government and several private sector defendants relating to hexavalent chromium (“Cr6”) pollution at the former McClellan Air Force Base (“Base”) near Sacramento, California.  The water utilities allege that during active operations of the Base, the federal government used products containing Cr6, which contaminated the groundwater aquifer from which the water utilities derive municipal drinking water, making it unsafe for human consumption.  Much of the case turned on the interplay between CERCLA sections 104 and 113(h) in the context of a clean up of a federal facility. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, CERCLA, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Drinking Water, Federal Facilities, Groundwater, Negligence, Nuisance, RCRA, Remediation, Removal, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Superfund, Trespass

Rejecting federal officer removal and federal question removal theories, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District of West Virginia’s remand of a state tort suit against the remediators of an EPA-permitted Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) site.  W.V. St. Univ. Bd. of Govs. v. Dow Chem. Co. et al., No. 20-1712, __ F.4^th __, 2022 WL 90242 (Jan. 10, 2022). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Federal Jurisdiction, Federal Procedure, Fourth Circuit, Groundwater, Negligence, Nuisance, Procedure, RCRA, Removal, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Superfund, Trespass, West Virginia

On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court vacated an appellate court decision which had remanded to state court an action seeking to hold petroleum companies liable for the effects of climate change, finding that the appellate court impermissibly restricted the scope of its review of a district court’s order. Although, as noted by the Supreme Court, “[t]he only question before us is one of civil procedure,” the case of BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Docket No. 19-1189 (May 17, 2021) may have a profound practical impact on ongoing environmental litigation. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Citizen Suit, Climate Change, Decisions of Note, Energy, Fourth Circuit, Greenhouse Gas, Oil and Gas, Procedure, Refinery, Removal, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court

In State of Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co., L.L.C. et al., No. 19-1818 (1st Cir. 2020), decided on October 29th, 2020, the First Circuit joined seven sister circuits in holding that the scope of appellate review of remand orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) is limited to the questions of federal-officer jurisdiction and civil rights jurisdiction. And while the holding does not break new ground in light of its consistency, it informs members of industry of the venue in which they will litigate climate change claims based in tort and state law providing environmental rights. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Climate Change, Federal Procedure, First Circuit, Nuisance, Procedure, Removal, Trespass

The Federal Tort Claims Act permits claims for monetary damages against the United States for injury or loss of property caused by the wrongful acts of federal employees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). However, this waiver of sovereign immunity is limited by the discretionary function exception, which preserves immunity for claims “based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit analyzed the discretionary function exception in the context of environmental contamination, finding that the exception does not apply to what can best be described as ordinary negligence in the performance of a site remediation. Nanouk v. United States, No. 13-35116 (Sept. 4, 2020). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Alaska, Cleanup, Contamination, Federal Tort Claims Act, Negligence, Ninth Circuit, Nuisance, Odors, PCBs, Property Damage, Remediation, Removal, Sovereign Immunity, Toxic Torts, Trespass