{"id":18,"date":"2020-09-17T16:48:44","date_gmt":"2020-09-17T23:48:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/?page_id=18"},"modified":"2026-04-26T16:31:21","modified_gmt":"2026-04-26T23:31:21","slug":"funding","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/?page_id=18","title":{"rendered":"Global Warming Lawsuits List – 31 current (Updated 4\/5\/26)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The following list of global warming lawsuits, almost<\/span> in basic order of courthouse file date appearance (#s 45 & 46 being out-of-sequence)<\/span>, is not an all inclusive-list. When I see “children’s” lawsuits like the [dismissed<\/a>]\u00a0 Juliana, et al. v. United States of America<\/em><\/a> or the like the other variants Held v. Montana<\/em><\/a> \/ Navahine F. v. Hawai\u2018i D.O.T.<\/em><\/a>, and the latest Dec 2023 Genesis B. v. United States EPA<\/em><\/a>, which contain no accusation implying energy company officials colluded with skeptic climate ‘liars-for-hire’ scientists in disinformation campaigns, they don’t get listed here. Same reason for not including the 10\/24\/2018 State of New York v. Exxon<\/em><\/a> lawsuit, where energy companies simply stood accused of not telling their investors<\/a> about climate change risks.The lawsuit filings below each contain, either minimally or more significantly, accusations that fossil fuel industry disinformation campaigns exist, and the supporting evidence is a supposedly leaked industry memo set known as “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact,” and \/ or<\/em><\/strong> the memo set known as “victory will be achieved.” Many more details about each lawsuit can be read in my “details here” blog post links below, and additionally in the “post categories’ \/ “post tags” links at the end of each blog post. Each new lawsuit appearing after the initial creation date of this list (9\/17\/20) will appear at the end of this list with a new running total number assigned to it, and will be red-highlighted<\/span>, similar to my updates in my NewsHour Reporting<\/a> page.<\/p>\n

List of overall<\/strong> below\u2014 (the first two in the list were dismissed long ago, but are included for reference purposes) of ‘Big Energy Knew’-style lawsuits \u2014 as of 4\/5\/26<\/span><\/strong>. The latest update concerns my pair of additions for Birmingham Retirement & Relief v Tillerson<\/em> and Ramirez v Exxon<\/em>, which are both out-of-date-sequence with the others. Label them as ‘flying under the radar,’ I was not aware of them when they were filed. Both are supposedly ‘Independently led,’ where one of those two apparently has a big<\/strong> problem on that<\/em> angle.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Dismissed: 15<\/strong><\/span> — #s 1, 2, 11, 13, 15,16, 22<\/span><\/span>, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 37, 38 & 40<\/span> in the list below.<\/p>\n

Sher Edling boilerplate<\/a> copies: 1<\/strong>6<\/strong> current<\/strong>, with the addition of MI v. BP PLC<\/em> (albeit, 23<\/strong> filed; their client group in PCFFA v Chevron <\/em>self-dismissed its lawsuit on 12\/14\/23<\/a><\/span><\/span> and their Baltimore v BP<\/em> was dismissed by a city judge on 7\/10\/24 as being ‘not for cities to decide’ – Forbes<\/em> article about this development here<\/a>. Their Annapolis v. BP<\/em> and Anne Arundel County v. BP<\/em> lawsuits were dismissed on 1\/23\/25. More details on that here<\/a> and here<\/a>, and their Platkin v Exxon<\/em> lawsuit was dismissed on Feb 5, 2025, More details on that here<\/a> and here<\/a>. Their Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico v. Exxon<\/em> was self-dismissed on May 2, 2025, details here<\/a> and here<\/a>. Their Charleston v Brabham<\/em> was dismissed on 8\/6\/25 with prejudice by the South Carolina judge, details here<\/a>.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Sher Edling assistance<\/a> lawsuits<\/span><\/span>: 4<\/strong> * <\/strong>(see asterisk note, re <\/em>City of NY v Exxon below)<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Hagens-Berman-Pawa<\/a> lawsuits (designated “Pawa” for short in the list below): 3 current<\/strong>\u00a0(albeit, 5 filed; Pawa #4 lawsuit, King County v. BP<\/em>, was self-dismissed by the county<\/a> on 9\/28\/21, and Pawa #3 City of New York v. BP PLC<\/em> – previously designated as ‘unclear status in this list, was affirmed as dismissed<\/a> on May 24, 2021).<\/p>\n

‘Independently led’<\/a> lawsuits: <\/span>8 <\/span>current <\/strong>(albeit 10 filed in total, 4<\/span> dismissed) – Birmingham Retirement & Relief v Tillerson<\/em> and Ramirez v Exxon<\/em> are added at the bottom of this list, albeit out-of-date-sequence with the newer filings.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Total current<\/strong><\/em> lawsuits:\u00a0 31<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

*<\/strong><\/span> City of New York v Exxon Mobil Corp et al.<\/em><\/a> (4\/22\/21 its 97 page filing includes a 38-page Appendix, which Sher Edling – see below – omits<\/a>) \u2014 similar to the above noted NY State v Exxon<\/em> filing, this one makes no mention of energy orchestrated disinformation campaigns employing skeptic climate scientists, it just accuses the companies of not warning consumers<\/a> of the harm of oil-derived products. However the city has brought in the California law firm Sher Edling<\/strong><\/a> for assistance. That’s weird<\/em>.<\/strong> As seen in the Sher Edling boilerplate filings, that firm uses the ‘crooked skeptics exposed by leaked industry memos’ accusation as a cornerstone in all of its filings. Do they plan to add that accusation angle later? It’s something to keep an eye out for. I won’t add this one<\/strong> to the overall count, but it is nevertheless mentioned as an asterisk because of its hugely problematic association with that law firm. [Author’s 1\/15\/25 addition:<\/strong> weird that it was connected to Sher Edling, the case is now nevertheless dismissed<\/strong><\/a> by a New York state Judge.]<\/strong><\/span><\/em>
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/p>\n

1 & 2: Comer v. Murphy Oil<\/em> (2\/23\/06, Dismissed<\/strong><\/a>)
\nKivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., et al.<\/em> (2\/26\/08, Dismissed<\/strong><\/a>) \u2014 details here, “Three Degrees of Separation or Less, Part V: Ross Gelbspan and Global Warming Nuisance Lawsuits<\/a>” Within that blog post, I also mention another of the “original global warming lawsuits,” Connecticut v American Electric Power <\/em>(Dismissed<\/strong><\/a>), which doesn’t offer ‘leaked industry memos’ evidence, but has an important connection to the lead lawyer of Kivalina<\/em>, Matt Pawa, who’s seen in subsequent lawsuits in this list.<\/p>\n

3, 4 & 5: County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., et al.<\/em>
\nCounty of Marin v. Chevron Corp., et al.<\/em>
\nCity of Imperial Beach v. Chevron Corp., et al.<\/em> (all three filed on 7\/17\/17) \u2014 The first trio<\/strong> in what I term the “Sher Edling boilerplate copy” lawsuits, because all three are handled by the Sher Edling law firm<\/a>, and because (other than wording applicable to specific plaintiffs) they are all nearly identical. At the time in 2017, it looked sensible to save time and effort for these nearby communities to utilize a centralized lawsuit \/ law firm, even when they were filed in separate courthouses. More details on the faults within these here<\/a><\/strong>, which includes Sher Edling’s potentially problematic tie-in to Kert Davies’ Climate Files \/ Climate Investigations Center.<\/p>\n

6 & 7: People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C., et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case CGC 17-561370<\/em>
\nPeople of the State of California v. BP P.L.C., et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case<\/em> (both filed on 9\/19\/17, initially dismissed<\/a> \/ apparently subsequently reinstated<\/a>) \u2014 Pawa #1 & 2<\/strong> lawsuits, details here<\/a><\/strong>, regarding the reappearance of attorney Matt Pawa in his new series of lawsuits filed by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP<\/a>.<\/p>\n

8, 9 & 10: County of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp., et al.<\/em> (12\/20\/17)
\nCity of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp., et al.<\/em> (12\/20\/17)
\nCity of Richmond v. Chevron Corp., et al.<\/em> (1\/22\/18) \u2014 The second trio (#s 4,5 & 6<\/strong>) in the Sher Edling boilerplate copy lawsuits \u2014 details here<\/a><\/strong>, ending with an item on how the energy companies could expose who is behind all these lawsuits via subpoenas of critical communications among a core group of enviro-activists.<\/p>\n

11: City of New York v. BP PLC, et al.<\/em> (1\/09\/18 – Dismissed<\/strong><\/a>)\u2014 Pawa #3<\/strong> lawsuit. Note that the filing date for this on actually falls between the filings for the above Sher Edling Santa Cruz \/ Richmond filings. More details here<\/a><\/strong>, including its and Matt Pawa’s ties to Naomi Oreskes, Kert Davies, and Ross Gelbspan.<\/p>\n

12: City of Boulder, Boulder County and San Miguel County v. Suncor Energy, ExxonMobil<\/em> (4\/17\/18) \u2014 jointly submitted under one single filing, it’s the first lawsuit (#1<\/strong> ‘Independently led’) with no readily obvious outright connection to<\/del> either Matt Pawa or Sher Edling<\/del>,*<\/strong> <\/span>but it does contain a passage that’s troublingly similar to one in the above Pawa-led New York v. BP lawsuit<\/em>. Details here<\/a><\/strong>. [ <\/em>* <\/strong>9\/10\/23 revision: <\/em>I’ve relabeled this one as a\u00a0Sher Edling assistance<\/a><\/span> filing, as explained here<\/a>]. It’s out-of-numerical-sequence here as the #3<\/strong> Sher Edling assistance close to the top of the list due to my awareness of the Sher Edling connection happening at this post revision time.]<\/em><\/p>\n

13: **<\/strong> King County v. BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch and ConocoPhillips<\/em> (5\/9\/18 **<\/strong>Self-dismissed, as of 9\/28\/21<\/a>) \u2014 Pawa #4<\/strong> lawsuit, details here<\/a><\/strong>, which include three further credibility problems lead attorney Matt Pawa.<\/p>\n

14: State of Rhode Island v. Chevron, et al.<\/em> (7\/2\/18) \u2014 Sher Edling #7<\/strong> boilerplate copy, the point in time where the near-verbatim copies looks suspect. Details here<\/a><\/strong>, where I additionally include the lawsuit’s enslavement to a highly disingenuous claim by Naomi Oreskes about what President Lyndon Johnson said.<\/p>\n

15. **<\/strong>Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., et al.<\/em> (7\/20\/18 **<\/strong>Dismissed<\/strong> as of July 10, 2024<\/a> (judge’s full ruling here<\/a>) \u2014 Sher Edling #8<\/strong> boilerplate copy, my dissection shortly after it was originally filed is here<\/a><\/strong>, where I also included the troubling connections with other people and situations which lead attorneys Vic Sher \/ Matt Edling have.<\/p>\n

16: **<\/strong><\/span> Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen\u2019s Associations Inc. v. Chevron Corp., et al.<\/em> (11\/14\/18\u00a0 **<\/strong>Self-dismissed, as of 12\/14\/23<\/a>, <\/span><\/strong>more details<\/span><\/span> here<\/a> and here<\/a> ) \u2014 Sher Edling #9<\/strong> boilerplate copy, details here<\/a><\/strong>, ending with the basic question of why this law firm continues to pitch the same lawsuit template to different potential plaintiffs. [<\/strong> 2\/18\/23 Author’s addition:<\/em> As nicely illustrated at Climate Litigation Watch’s Feb 17, 2023 post<\/a>, back in late 2018, National Public Radio reported that “Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity<\/strong> (CCI), is not involved in the crabbers’ lawsuit<\/strong><\/em> \u2026” But in an FOIA-requested CCI video that Climate Litigation Watch just made public<\/a>, the staff attorney for CCI (described as such by the CCI video host at 27:55) Corey Riday-White said at the 35:12 “One of the cases that has been filed that we do support<\/strong> was brought by a fishermen\u2019s association in Northern California\/Southern Oregon<\/em> \u2026”\u00a0 You can’t have it both ways.\u00a0 Due to rising amounts of trouble I see with CCI’s quite likely direct connections with the Sher Edling lawsuits, I had to create a new tag category for CCI<\/a>. FYI, that<\/em> Richard Wiles<\/a> ]<\/strong><\/p>\n

17: Massachusetts v. Exxon<\/em> (10\/24\/2019) \u2014 #4<\/strong> Sher Edling assistance lawsuit, as the result of an action described in this 3\/29\/24<\/strong> Fox news article<\/a>. My Dec 2019<\/em> post on this one is here<\/a><\/strong>, concerning what looks like a paraphrase of ye olde<\/em> “reposition global warming” leaked memos phrase, where I also point out the troubling connections that the same-day-filed<\/em><\/strong> State of New York v. Exxon<\/em> lawsuit has with Matt Pawa and Naomi Oreskes.<\/p>\n

18: City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, et al.<\/em> (3\/9\/20) \u2014 After a nearly 16 month lull, Sher Edling #10<\/strong> boilerplate copy, details here<\/a><\/strong>, with particular additional attention to a dubious ‘innocuous-looking’ web link to what turns out to be an old document upload file from Kert Davies when he was at Greenpeace.<\/p>\n

19: State of Minnesota v American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil Corp, Koch Industries, Flint Hills Resources<\/em> (6\/24\/20) \u2014 #3<\/strong> ‘Independently led’ lawsuit<\/del>;*<\/strong> details here<\/a><\/strong> regarding its use of both the “reposition global warming and “victory will be achieved” memo sets and its obvious enslavement to Kert Davies’ Climate Files site as a source. [*<\/strong>12\/29\/20 revision: News of Sher Edling’s assistance came two months after the news about D.C. v Exxon immediately below, thus my out-of-sequence labeling of this as #2<\/strong> in the “Sher Edling assistance<\/a>” category. Details of that switch<\/strong> here<\/a>.]<\/em><\/p>\n

20: District of Columbia v ExxonMobil Corp, BP Plc, Chevron Corp, Royal Dutch Shell Plc<\/em> (6\/25\/20) \u2014 #4<\/strong> ‘Independently led’ lawsuit<\/del>; but is it a coincidence*<\/strong> that this seemingly independent one follows just a day after the above Minnesota v API<\/em>? Details here<\/a><\/strong>, regarding its single use of the “victory will be achieved” memo set and 10 elemental faults with a particular 4-paragraph passage \u2026. and the notation at the end of the filing about the Sher Edling firm. [*<\/strong>10\/15\/20 revision: it was not a coincidence <\/em>\u2014 In a recent change to Sher Edling’s website, they now claim<\/em> this is their lawsuit filing<\/a>.<\/em><\/span> But since it is an anomaly with significantly different text than the prior ten Sher Edling boilerplate copy filings, I place this one as #1<\/strong> in the “<\/span>Sher Edling assistance<\/a>” category instead<\/span><\/em><\/span>]<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

21: City of Hoboken v. ExxonMobil, et al.<\/em> (9\/2\/20) \u2014 #1<\/strong> ‘Independently led’ lawsuit <\/span>under a new pair of law firms, but they rely on the same old pair of leaked memo sets, details here<\/a><\/strong>, where at least one passage about the “reposition global warming” set seems to have citation sources that are perhaps questionably similar to the same citation sources in all the Sher Edling lawsuits.<\/p>\n

22: City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Company, et al.<\/em> (9\/9\/20 **<\/strong><\/span>Dismissed<\/strong><\/a> on 8\/6\/25<\/span>) \u2014 Sher Edling #11<\/strong> boilerplate copy, this one hardly different than the prior ten, where a particular repeated claim about what Exxon supposedly “knew” back in 1977-78 presents questions about whether there is one common preparation template used for all these like-minded lawsuit filings. Details here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

23: State of Delaware v. BP America Inc, et al.<\/em> (9\/10\/20) \u2014 Sher Edling #12<\/strong> boilerplate copy, a dozen<\/strong> basically identical lawsuits. In my dissection of this one, details here<\/a><\/strong>, I bring up an item repeated in all of the lawsuits concerning an apparently baseless accusation directed at one single skeptic climate scientist.<\/p>\n

24: Connecticut v. ExxonMobil Corp.<\/em> (9\/14\/20) \u2014 #2<\/strong> ‘Independently led’<\/span> lawsuit. Details here<\/a><\/strong>. Simple question for Exxon’s lawyers or objective reporters to ask is: What are the sources for the assertions in this filing and was there outside assistance of any kind in assembling this filing?<\/p>\n

25: County of Maui v. Sunoco LP, et al. <\/em>(10\/12\/20), Sher Edling #13<\/strong> boilerplate copy. They don’t yet show this one in their own official list of lawsuits<\/a> they are handling, but it is beyond clear that they are<\/a>, similar to the way they left Honolulu v. Sunoco<\/em> out of their list until recently despite the credit at the top of that 3\/9\/20 filing<\/a>. Details here<\/a><\/strong> on how this one is a classic boilerplate copy, and why even that is a problem reporters should be asking about.<\/p>\n

26: **<\/strong>City of Annapolis v. BP, et al. <\/em>(2\/22\/21 **<\/strong><\/span>Dismissed<\/strong><\/a> on 1\/23\/25) \u2014 Sher Edling #14<\/strong> <\/span>boilerplate copy. ) Details here<\/a><\/strong>, where it seems that an inordinate number of news outlets were eager to dutifully regurgitate a particular quip about it from the city officials.<\/p>\n

27: **<\/strong>Anne Arundel County, Maryland v. BP, et al. <\/em>(4\/26\/21 **<\/strong>Dismissed<\/strong><\/a> on 1\/23\/25) \u2014 Sher Edling #15<\/strong> boilerplate copy<\/span>. Details here<\/a><\/strong>, noting just how much of a nearly literal copy this is of the above Annapolis<\/em> filing.<\/p>\n

28<\/span>: State Of Vermont v. ExxonMobil Corp. et al.<\/em> (9\/14\/21<\/span><\/span>) \u2014 #3<\/strong> ‘Independently led’ <\/span>lawsuit. The Vermont AG’s announcement is here<\/a>, and the filing is here<\/a>, where only ye olde<\/em> worthless “Victory will be achieved” memos<\/a> are offered on page 28<\/a> as the best available evidence for the accusation that fossil fuel execs colluded with skeptic climate scientists to spread disinformation to undercut the ‘settled science’ of man-caused global warming. More details here<\/a><\/strong>, including the problem this lawsuit might have with text seemingly partly copied from a prior ‘not-exactly-independently led’ lawsuit.<\/p>\n

29: <\/span>**<\/strong>Platkin v Exxon Mobil Corp. <\/em>(10\/18\/22 **<\/strong>Dismissed<\/strong><\/a> on 2\/5\/25) \u2014 Sher Edling #16<\/strong> boilerplate copy.<\/span> Extensive details here<\/a><\/strong>. Let’s just say New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s actions on this wasn’t all that well thought out<\/a> …. not that any major sycophant news outlet<\/a> will tell you about that, of course.<\/p>\n

30: Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobil, et al.<\/em> (11\/22\/22 <\/span>**<\/strong>Dis<\/strong>m<\/strong>issed<\/strong><\/a><\/span> on 9\/11\/25 – it had been earlier renamed “Municipality of Bayam\u00f3n et al<\/em>.”), \u2014 #4<\/strong> ‘Independently led’ lawsuit.<\/span> Lawsuit filing here<\/a>, by the Tennessee-headquartered Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, LLC<\/a> law firm, an apparently new player in the “Exxon Knew”-style lawsuits. Or are they? The Nov 29 Reuters news announcement about the filing<\/a> said “The group of 16 municipalities filed what they called a first-of-its-kind lawsuit<\/em>.” Ah … no<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 Just no.\u00a0 There are egregious errors in its accusations ….. big ones. Full details in my Part 1 dissection here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

31: County of Multnomah v. Exxon Mobil, et al.<\/em> (6\/22\/23), \u2014 #5<\/strong> ‘Independently led’ lawsuit.<\/span><\/span> Details here<\/a><\/strong>, which prompt the most basic of questions: why does this Oregon lawsuit, filed by yet another apparently new player in the “Exxon Knew”-style lawsuits, have instances of identically copied text, along with a particular erroneous reading of an old photocopy scan, and<\/em><\/strong> an inexplicable citation weblink, with the prior, 3700+ miles-away Puerto Rico v. Exxon<\/em> filing? And if the effort was going to be no more than a cheap copy of Puerto Rico<\/em>, why did the Oregon law firm seemingly revert to a lousy photocopies format seen in numerous previous “Exxon Knew” lawsuits concerning specific ‘leaked industry memos’ that Puerto Rico<\/em> deemed by default too hard to read?<\/p>\n

32: P<\/span>eople of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation <\/em>(9\/15\/23), \u2014 #6<\/strong> ‘Independently led’ lawsuit.<\/span><\/span> Or is it?<\/strong> Disturbingly similar passages in this one to others in my list here, along with what looks like efforts to conceal where the original accusations source from. Details here<\/a><\/strong>.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

33: Municipality of San Juan v. Exxon Mobil Corp.<\/em> (12\/13\/23 **<\/strong>Dis<\/strong>m<\/strong>issed<\/strong><\/a> on 9\/30\/25), \u2014 #7<\/strong> \u2018Independently led\u2019 lawsuit.<\/span> Or what<\/em><\/strong> is it, exactly? Embarrassing enough that the above June 2023 Multnomah<\/em> filing was apparently a partly plagiarized copy of the Nov 2022 Puerto Rico v. Exxon<\/em>, this filing<\/a> appears to be an almost entirely direct copy of Puerto Rico<\/em> \u2026 which is odd, since Puerto Rico <\/em>already covered the city of San Juan<\/a>. Details here<\/a>.<\/strong>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

34 \/ 35: Makah Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobil Corporation<\/em> (12\/20\/23) \/ Shoalwater Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobil Corporation<\/em> (12\/20\/23) \u2014 Sher Edling #17<\/strong> and #18<\/strong> boilerplate copies<\/span>. Single dissection of both of these almost completely identical filings<\/span> here<\/a><\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

36: City of Chicago v. BP P.L.C., et al.<\/em> (2\/20\/2024) \u2014 Sher Edling #19<\/strong> boilerplate copy. Details here<\/strong><\/a>, including the new wrinkle contrasting with its prior boilerplate copies, concerning its blatantly false accusation directed at Dr Willie Soon.<\/p>\n

37: **<\/strong>Bucks County v. BP P.L.C., et al.<\/em> (3\/25\/2024 **Dismissed<\/a><\/strong> on 5\/16\/25) \u2014 #8<\/strong> \u2018Independently led\u2019<\/del><\/span> lawsuit<\/del>. Or what<\/em><\/strong> is it, exactly?<\/span><\/span> Details here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

38: <\/span>**<\/strong>Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico v. Exxon<\/em> (7\/15\/2024 **<\/strong>Self-dismissed<\/strong><\/a> on 5\/2\/25) \u2014 Sher Edling #20<\/strong> boilerplate copy. It was filed in Spanish, and I had to directly ask for the “Annex” which had all the ‘boilerplate copied’ items. Details here<\/a><\/strong>.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

39:\u00a0State of Maine v. BP P.L.C.<\/em> (11\/26\/2024) \u2014\u00a0Sher Edling #21<\/strong> boilerplate copy. They’ve seemingly plagiarized at least one bit in this one from a ‘previously unassociated’ 2017 filing. Details here<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

40: <\/span>**<\/strong>Town of Carrboro, North Carolina v. Duke Energy<\/em> (12\/4\/2024 <\/span>**<\/strong>Dismissed<\/a><\/strong><\/span> on 2\/12\/26)\u00a0\u2014 <\/span>#9<\/strong> \u2018Independently led\u2019 lawsuit. Details here<\/strong><\/a>. This appears to be an outlier effort, but it’s still predictably enslaved to one set of worthless ‘leaked industry memos.’ However, this one injects an new wrinkle into what’s otherwise been a 28 year-old meritless accusation.<\/span><\/p>\n

41<\/strong>: State of Hawai`i v. BP P.L.C<\/em>. (5\/1\/2025) \u2014\u00a0Sher Edling #22<\/strong> boilerplate copy overall. D<\/strong>etails here<\/strong><\/a>, it is little more than wastefully redundant in light of Honolulu<\/em> \/ Maui<\/em>, #s 18 & 25 above, but it also potentially amplifies for DoJ<\/a> what the collective additional angle problem is for all<\/em> of Sher Edling’s “ExxonKnew” lawsuits.<\/p>\n

42<\/strong>:\u00a0Estate of Juliana Leon v Exxon Mobil Corporation<\/em> (5\/28\/2025) \u2014 #10<\/strong> \u2018Independently led\u2019 lawsuit.\u00a0Details<\/strong> here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/strong> Highly suspect<\/em> maneuver to switch from suing over from recovery of widespread public damage, to a grave individual personal injury case.<\/p>\n

43<\/strong>: Richard Kennedy, Margaret Hazard, et al. v Exxon Mobil Corporation<\/em> (11\/22\/2025) \u2014 #5 <\/strong>in the total count\u00a0 under what I term “Hagens-Berman-Pawa” filings. Technically only 3 are current including this new one, albeit the original two were taken over<\/em> by Sher Edling.<\/em> This new one – details here<\/a><\/strong> – apparently plagiarizes from Sher Edling’s prior Hawaii v BP<\/em> \/ Maine v BP<\/em> filings, which themselves apparently plagiarized accusation bits from the original pair of Hagens-Berman-Pawa filings.<\/p>\n

44:<\/strong> Michigan v. BP P.L.C<\/em>. (1\/23\/2026) \u2014 Sher Edling #23<\/strong> boilerplate copy overall, 16 <\/strong>of which are still current. <\/strong> Details here<\/a><\/strong>. Notice who one of the assisting law firms is in the last two pages<\/a> of the filing, and how that firm supposedly ‘assisted’<\/a> in the Sher Edling pure boilerplate Maine v BP<\/em> filing, and how that same ‘assisting’ firm is the sole firm<\/a> claiming to have filed the [so far, MIA<\/a>] Casquejo v Shell<\/em> lawsuit in the UK High Court.<\/p>\n

45: <\/strong>City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v Rex Tillerson, et al<\/em>. (12\/02\/19) \u2014 #11<\/strong> \u2018Independently led\u2019 lawsuit. This one contains two of<\/span> the four basic accusation elements<\/a> regularly seen in the Sher Edling boilerplate filings, but it also shares something else with a supposedly unassociated \u2018Independently led\u2019 lawsuit. Details<\/strong><\/span> here<\/strong><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

46th ExxonKnew”-style lawsuit overall, 31\u00a0of which are still current: <\/strong>Pedro Ramirez Jr v Exxon Mobil Corp<\/em> (7\/26\/17) \u2014 #12<\/strong> \u2018Independently led\u2019 lawsuit, 8 of which are still current.<\/strong> With just one of<\/span> the four basic accusation elements<\/a> regularly seen in the Sher Edling boilerplate filings, this one barely squeaks into my list here, but its blunder with just that one accusation still points to a much deeper problem with all<\/em> of these lawsuits. Details<\/strong><\/span> here<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The following list of global warming lawsuits, almost in basic order of courthouse file date appearance (#s 45 & 46 being out-of-sequence), is not an all inclusive-list. When I see “children’s” lawsuits like the [dismissed]\u00a0 Juliana, et al. v. United … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":5,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/18"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=18"}],"version-history":[{"count":187,"href":"https:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/18\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19833,"href":"https:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/18\/revisions\/19833"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=18"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}