Back
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2082 Doc: 146 Filed: 02/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 13
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2082
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BP P.L.C.; BP AMERICA, INC.; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.;
CROWN CENTRAL LLC; CROWN CENTRAL NEW HOLDINGS LLC;
ROSEMORE, INC.; CHEVRON CORP.; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; EXXON
MOBIL CORP.; EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION; AMERICAN
PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; SHELL PLC, f/k/a Royal Dutch Shell plc; SHELL
USA, INC., f/k/a Shell Oil Company; CITGO PETROLEUM CORP.;
CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; PHILLIPS 66; PHILLIPS
66 COMPANY; MARATHON OIL COMPANY; MARATHON OIL
CORPORATION; MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION; SPEEDWAY
LLC; HESS CORP.; CNX RESOURCES CORPORATION; CONSOL ENERGY,
INC.; CONSOL MARINE TERMINALS LLC,
Defendants – Appellants.
No. 22-2101
CITY OF ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BP P.L.C.; BP AMERICA, INC.; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.;
CROWN CENTRAL LLC; CROWN CENTRAL NEW HOLDINGS LLC;
CHEVRON CORP.; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; EXXON MOBIL CORP.;
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2082 Doc: 146 Filed: 02/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 13
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION; SHELL PLC, f/k/a/ Royal Dutch Shell plc;
SHELL USA, INC., f/k/a Shell Oil Company; CITGO PETROLEUM
CORPORATION; CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY;
PHILLIPS 66; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; MARATHON OIL COMPANY;
MARATHON OIL CORPORATION; MARATHON PETROLEUM
CORPORATION; SPEEDWAY LLC; HESS CORPORATION; CNX RESOURCES
CORPORATION; CONSOL ENERGY, INCORPORATED; CONSOL MARINE
TERMINALS LLC; AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; ROSEMORE,
INC.,
Defendants – Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:21-cv-01323-SAG; 1:21-cv-00772-SAG)
Argued: December 6, 2023 Decided: February 26, 2024
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Heytens wrote the opinion, which Judge Wynn and
Judge Thacker joined.
ARGUED: Kannon K. Shanmugam, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Victor Marc Sher, SHER EDLING
LLP, San Francisco, California, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Thomas G. Hungar,
Washington, D.C., Andrea E. Neuman, New York, New York, Joshua D. Dick, San
Francisco, California, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., William E. Thomson, GIBSON, DUNN
& CRUTCHER LLP, Los Angeles, California; Ty Kelly Cronin, Alison C. Schurick, Kyle
S. Kushner, BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ P.C.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. David
B. Hamilton, Sarah E. Meyer, Hillary V. Colonna, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US)
LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Jameson R. Jones, Daniel R. Brody, BARTLIT BECK LLP,
Denver, Colorado, for Appellants ConocoPhillips and ConocoPhillips Company. Matthew
J. Peters, Washington, D.C., Steven M. Bauer, Margaret A. Tough, Katherine A. Rouse,
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, San Francisco, California, for Appellants Phillips 66,
Phillips 66 Company, ConocoPhillips, and ConocoPhillips Company. Martha Thomsen,
Megan H. Berge, Washington, D.C., J. Scott Janoe, BAKER BOTTS LLP, Houston, Texas,
for Appellant Hess Corp. Brian D. Schmalzbach, Richmond, Virginia, Ava E. Lias-Booker,
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2082 Doc: 146 Filed: 02/26/2024 Pg: 3 of 13
Melissa O. Martinez, MCGUIREWOORDS LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant
American Petroleum Institute. David C. Frederick, Daniel S. Severson, KELLOGG,
HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellants
Shell plc and Shell USA, Inc. Tracy A. Roman, Washington, D.C., Honor R. Costello,
CROWELL & MORING LLP, New York, New York, for Appellants CONSOL Energy Inc.
and CONSOL Marine Terminals LLC. Noel J. Francisco, David M. Morrell, J. Benjamin
Aguiñaga, Washington, D.C., David C. Kiernan, JONES DAY, San Francisco, California,
for Appellant CNX Resources Corp. Thomas K. Prevas, SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN &
LEHR LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants Crown Central LLC, Crown Central New
Holdings LLC, and Rosemore, Inc. Warren N. Weaver, WHITEFORD TAYLOR &
PRESTON LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Nathan P. Eimer, Pamela R. Hanebutt, Lisa S.
Meyer, Chicago, Illinois, Robert E. Dunn, EIMER STAHL LLP, San Jose, California, for
Appellant CITGO Petroleum Corporation. Craig A. Thompson, VENABLE LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland; Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Daniel J. Toal, Yahonnes Cleary, Caitlin E.
Grusauskas, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP, New York, New
York, for Appellants Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation. John B.
Isbister, Jaime W. Luse, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Nancy
Milburn, Diana Reiter, New York, New York, John D. Lombardo, Los Angeles, California,
Jonathan W. Hughes, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, San Francisco,
California, for Appellants BP plc, BP America Inc., and BP Products North America Inc.
Mark S. Saudek, GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Robert
Reznick, Washington, D.C.; James Stengel, New York, New York, Catherine Y. Lui,
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP, San Francisco, California, for Appellants
Marathon Oil Corporation and Marathon Oil Company. Shannon S. Broome, Ann Marie
Mortimer, San Francisco, California, Shawn Patrick Regan, HUNTON ANDREWS
KURTH LLP, New York, New York, for Appellants Marathon Petroleum Corporation and
Speedway LLC. Matthew K. Edling, Martin D. Quiñones, SHER EDLING LLP, San
Francisco, California, for Appellees. Gregory J. Swain, County Attorney, Hamilton F.
Tyler, Deputy County Attorney, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW,
Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee Anne Arundel County, Maryland. D. Michael Lyles,
City Attorney, Joel A. Braithwaite, Assistant City Attorney, CITY OF ANNAPOLIS
OFFICE OF LAW, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee City of Annapolis, Maryland.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2082 Doc: 146 Filed: 02/26/2024 Pg: 4 of 13
TOBY HEYTENS,
The appellants in these cases display a real commitment to the maxim, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again.” In recent years, state and local governments have brought state-court lawsuits against energy companies, alleging they misrepresented and concealed information about their fossil fuel products in violation of state tort and consumer protection laws. The companies have sought—over and over and over—to remove the cases to federal court. By our count, that gambit has failed in at least ten cases already. 1 The eleventh time is not the charm. I. Two Maryland local governments—the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel
County—filed nearly identical suits against BP P.L.C. and more than 20 other energy companies in Maryland state court. The complaints seek damages and equitable relief under Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act and various state tort law causes of action based on the companies’ use and promotion of fossil fuel products while “knowing,” 1 Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Prodts. Co., 35 F.4th 44 (1st Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1796 (2023) ; Connecticut by Tong v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 83 F.4th 122 (2d Cir. 2023); City of Hoboken v. Chevron Corp., 45 F.4th 699 (3d Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2483 (2023) ; Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., 31 F.4th 178 (4th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1795 (2023) ; Minnesota by Ellison v. American Petrol. Inst., 63 F.4th 703 (8th Cir. 2023), cert denied, 2024 WL 72389 (Jan. 8, 2024); County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 32 F.4th 733 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1797 (2023) ; City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, 39 F.4th 1101 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1795 (2023) ; City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 2023 WL 8179286 (9th Cir. Nov. 27, 2023); Board of Cnty. Comm’rs of Boulder Cnty. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., 25 F.4th 1238 (10th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1795 (2023) ; District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 89 F.4th 144 (D.C. Cir. 2023).
4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2082 Doc: 146 Filed: 02/26/2024 Pg: 5 of 13 “conceal[ing],” and “obscur[ing]” the connection between those products and climate change. JA 1302, ¶ 12; JA 675, ¶ 236. According to the local governments, the companies’ “public deception campaigns” and “failure to pursue less hazardous alternative products available” “unduly inflated the market for fossil fuel products.” JA 675, ¶ 236; JA 1345, ¶ 60. And that, the local governments say, led to “more anthropogenic greenhouse gases . . . emitted into the environment than would have been absent that conduct,” which “helped bring about global warming and consequent” adverse environmental, social, and economic harms. JA 675, ¶ 236; JA 1345, ¶ 60.
Making now well-rehearsed arguments, the companies removed the suits to federal court. The district court remanded both cases to state court. In its view, this Court’s decision in Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C. (Baltimore), 31 F.4th 178 (4th Cir. 2022), “govern[ed] and foreclose[d]” most of the companies’ asserted grounds for removal. The district court also rejected two arguments (one a variation on a previous argument, the
other new) it did not believe were precluded by Baltimore. The variation involved the companies’ continued assertion that they are eligible for federal officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1). The new argument was that the district court had removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.
