On September 15, 2023 a
ORDER STAYING ACTION PENDING COORDINATION (TRANS# 71609103)
was filed
involving a dispute between
The People Of The State Of California, Ex Rel.,
and
America Petroleum Institute,
Bp America Inc.,
Bp P.L.C,
Chevron Corporation,
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.,
Conocophillips,
Conocophillips Company,
Does 1 Through 100, Inclusive,
Exxon Mobil Corporation,
Exxonmobil Oil Corporation,
Phillips 66,
Phillips 66 Company,
Shell Oil Products Company Llc,
Shell Plc,
Shell Usa, Inc.,
for TOXIC TORT/ENVIRONMENT
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
FILED
San Francisco County Superior Court
DEG 12 2023
Deputy Cierk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ~
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10 DEPARTMENT 304
11
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Case No. CGC-23-609134
12 CALIFORNIA, ex rel. ROB BONTA,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ORDER STAYING ACTION PENDING
13 COORDINATION
14 Plaintiff,
15
16
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; et al.,
17
18
Defendants.
19
20
21
The instant action was filed on September 15, 2023 by The People of the State of California
22
against numerous oil and gas companies, generally alleging that their production and promotion of fossil
23
fuels contributes to climate change and constitutes a public nuisance under California law. The
24
Complaint asserts seven causes of action for public nuisance, equitable relief, untrue or misleading
25
advertising, misleading environmental marketing, unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, strict
26
products liability, and negligent products liability. The action is one of nine similar actions pending in
27
this Court as well as the Superior Courts for the Counties of San Mateo, Marin, Santa Cruz, Contra Costa
28
-1-
The People of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., CGC-23-609134
Order Staying Action Pending Coordination
and Alameda, seven of which are the subject of a coordination petition currently pending before the
Judicial Council. (State of California Climate Cases, JCCP No. 5310.)!
On December 1, 2023, the Court granted the People’s unopposed application to designate the
action as complex within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.400, and assigned the case for
all purposes to the undersigned judicial officer in the Court’s Complex Litigation Department. The
Court’s order cancelled the case management conference previously set in Department 610-of this Court,
directed that any pending motions previously set for hearing in the Law and Motion or Discovery
Departments should be taken off calendar, indicated that the Court would not set an initial case
management conference until the coordination petition is decided, and directed counsel to inform the
10 Court of the Judicial Council’s decision on that petition. The order did not explicitly stay further
11 proceedings in the case.
12 The Court has received a December 11, 2023 letter from counsel to Defendants Chevron
13 Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc., which asks the Court to confirm that the action is currently stayed
14 while the petition for coordination is pending. The Court has also received a letter of the same date from
‘
15 counsel to the People, which objects to that request and takes the position that if Chevron believes a stay
16 is appropriate, it should file a motion for such relief. In particular, the People inform the Court that
17 certain Defendants intend to file a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction as early as this week,
18 that the People intend to oppose that motion, and ask the Court to decide the issue of personal jurisdiction
19 while the petition for coordination is pending.
20 The Court hereby clarifies its prior order. All further proceedings in this action are hereby stayed,
21 pending the outcome of the petition for coordination, including the designation of a coordination trial
22 judge. This stay shall extend to, among other things, all Defendants’ responses to the Complaint
23 (answers, demurrers, and/or other responsive pleadings) and other threshold motions (including but not
24 limited to motions to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction, anti-SLAPP motions), and discovery. Sucha
25
! Two of the actions—those brought by the City and County of San Francisco and the City of Oakland--
26 were the subject of a recent memorandum opinion by the Ninth Circuit affirming an order by the district
court granting those Cities’ motion to remand the actions to state court. (City of Oakland v. BP PLC, et
27 al. and City and County of San Francisco v. BP PLC, et al., Nos. 22-16810 and 22-16812 (Nov. 27,
2023).) The Court understands that the People intend to request those actions be coordinated with the
28 remaining actions.
-2- 1
The People of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., CGC-23-609134
Order Staying Action Pending Coordination
stay is the only sensible and efficient approach to managing the related cases, which are likely to pose
numerous common issues. If the cases are coordinated, the Court will promptly schedule an initial case
management conference to address lifting the stay, scheduling of responsive pleadings and motions,
discovery, etc.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December ks52023
Ebohgan LA
Ethan P. Schulman
Judge of the Superior Court
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
The People of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al, CGC-23-609134
Order Staying Action Pending Coordination
CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE
(CCP 1010.6(6) & CRC 2.260(g))
I, Felicia Green, a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco,
certify that I am not a party to the within action.
On December 12, 2023, I electronically served ORDER STAYING ACTION PENDING
COORDINATION via File & ServeXpress on the recipients designated on the Transaction
Receipt located on the File & ServeXpress website.
Dated: DEC 1 2023
Brandon E. Riley, Court Executive Officer
By: CHUA Alec
Felicia Green, Deputy Clerk
Preview
FILED San Francisco County Superior Court DEG 12 2023 Deputy Cierk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ~ COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 DEPARTMENT 304 11 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Case No. CGC-23-609134 12 CALIFORNIA, ex rel. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ORDER STAYING ACTION PENDING 13 COORDINATION 14 Plaintiff, 15 16 EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; et al., 17 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 The instant action was filed on September 15, 2023 by The People of the State of California 22 against numerous oil and gas companies, generally alleging that their production and promotion of fossil 23 fuels contributes to climate change and constitutes a public nuisance under California law. The 24 Complaint asserts seven causes of action for public nuisance, equitable relief, untrue or misleading 25 advertising, misleading environmental marketing, unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, strict 26 products liability, and negligent products liability. The action is one of nine similar actions pending in 27 this Court as well as the Superior Courts for the Counties of San Mateo, Marin, Santa Cruz, Contra Costa 28 -1- The People of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., CGC-23-609134 Order Staying Action Pending Coordination and Alameda, seven of which are the subject of a coordination petition currently pending before the Judicial Council. (State of California Climate Cases, JCCP No. 5310.)! On December 1, 2023, the Court granted the People’s unopposed application to designate the action as complex within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.400, and assigned the case for all purposes to the undersigned judicial officer in the Court’s Complex Litigation Department. The Court’s order cancelled the case management conference previously set in Department 610-of this Court, directed that any pending motions previously set for hearing in the Law and Motion or Discovery Departments should be taken off calendar, indicated that the Court would not set an initial case management conference until the coordination petition is decided, and directed counsel to inform the 10 Court of the Judicial Council’s decision on that petition. The order did not explicitly stay further 11 proceedings in the case. 12 The Court has received a December 11, 2023 letter from counsel to Defendants Chevron 13 Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc., which asks the Court to confirm that the action is currently stayed 14 while the petition for coordination is pending. The Court has also received a letter of the same date from ‘ 15 counsel to the People, which objects to that request and takes the position that if Chevron believes a stay 16 is appropriate, it should file a motion for such relief. In particular, the People inform the Court that 17 certain Defendants intend to file a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction as early as this week, 18 that the People intend to oppose that motion, and ask the Court to decide the issue of personal jurisdiction 19 while the petition for coordination is pending. 20 The Court hereby clarifies its prior order. All further proceedings in this action are hereby stayed, 21 pending the outcome of the petition for coordination, including the designation of a coordination trial 22 judge. This stay shall extend to, among other things, all Defendants’ responses to the Complaint 23 (answers, demurrers, and/or other responsive pleadings) and other threshold motions (including but not 24 limited to motions to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction, anti-SLAPP motions), and discovery. Sucha 25 ! Two of the actions—those brought by the City and County of San Francisco and the City of Oakland-- 26 were the subject of a recent memorandum opinion by the Ninth Circuit affirming an order by the district court granting those Cities’ motion to remand the actions to state court. (City of Oakland v. BP PLC, et 27 al. and City and County of San Francisco v. BP PLC, et al., Nos. 22-16810 and 22-16812 (Nov. 27, 2023).) The Court understands that the People intend to request those actions be coordinated with the 28 remaining actions. -2- 1 The People of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., CGC-23-609134 Order Staying Action Pending Coordination stay is the only sensible and efficient approach to managing the related cases, which are likely to pose numerous common issues. If the cases are coordinated, the Court will promptly schedule an initial case management conference to address lifting the stay, scheduling of responsive pleadings and motions, discovery, etc. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December ks52023 Ebohgan LA Ethan P. Schulman Judge of the Superior Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- The People of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al, CGC-23-609134 Order Staying Action Pending Coordination CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE (CCP 1010.6(6) & CRC 2.260(g)) I, Felicia Green, a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, certify that I am not a party to the within action. On December 12, 2023, I electronically served ORDER STAYING ACTION PENDING COORDINATION via File & ServeXpress on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the File & ServeXpress website. Dated: DEC 1 2023 Brandon E. Riley, Court Executive Officer By: CHUA Alec Felicia Green, Deputy Clerk