Comer v. Murphy Oil Usa, Inc.
839 F. Supp. 2d 849
S.D. Miss.2012Background
- Plaintiffs filed a 2005 suit against insurers and oil, electric, chemical, and coal defendants alleging greenhouse gas emissions caused Katrina-related damages.
- The court dismissed in 2005 for lack of jurisdiction; Fifth Circuit later reversed parts and en banc proceedings led to dismissal status changes and mandamus petitions.
- In 2011, plaintiffs filed a new suit against a broad group of energy defendants asserting state tort claims (nuisance, trespass, negligence) and preemption issues related to emissions.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); multiple related motions and sanctions motions were filed and briefed.
- The court held the current action barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, lacked standing, presented non-justiciable political questions, was displaced by the Clean Air Act, and was time-barred by the statute of limitations.
- Judgment granted: the case dismissed with prejudice and sanctions denied against plaintiffs; remaining motions moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata applicability | Comer I and current suit involve same claims against same theory. | Previously adjudicated claims bar current action. | Barred by res judicata. |
| Collateral estoppel applicability | Prior findings do not bind new party actions. | Elements satisfied; prior determinations binding. | Barred by collateral estoppel. |
| Standing | Injuries fairly traceable to defendants’ emissions. | ||
| Massachusetts and related cases support standing for environmental claims. | Private citizens lack standing; causal chain too attenuated. | Lack of standing; injuries not fairly traceable. | |
| Political question | Claims seek judicial relief for nuisance without policy determination. | Issues require EPA-like policy judgments; not suitable for court. | Non-justiciable political question; dismissed. |
| Preemption by Clean Air Act | State tort claims distinct from federal nuisance. | ||
| Displacement limited to federal claims, not state ones. | CAC preempts state nuisance claims; federal policy governs. | Displaced; preemption applies; claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2007) (standing for climate-related claims depends on injury and causation)
- American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527 (U.S. 2011) (standing to seek injunctive relief on greenhouse gas emissions)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., 95 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 1996) (three-part test for standing in Clean Water Act context)
- Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. United States, 18 F.3d 1233 (5th Cir. 1994) (origin of geographic nexus considerations in standing for water pollutants)
- Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 663 F. Supp. 2d 863 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (global warming suits lack standing where causal link is too tenuous)
- Boone v. Kurtz, 617 F.2d 435 (5th Cir. 1980) (final judgment on merits for res judicata analysis when lack of jurisdiction)
- United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2002) (federal courts have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction)
- Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., 131 S. Ct. 2527 (U.S. 2011) (preemption and role of EPA in setting emissions standards)