California state officials and their environmentalist activist allies should be allowed to use California state courts to attempt to hammer ExxonMobil to cash in on their claims that the energy producing giant misled the public and governments about the benefits of plastic recycling.
On Feb. 24, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg rejected an attempt by ExxonMobil to place the legal actions in federal court, granting the motion from California Attorney General Rob Bonta to send the case back to San Francisco County Superior Court.
In the ruling, Seeborg declared ExxonMobil's attempt to avoid California's famously plaintiff friendly and anti-business state courts "falls flat." In the decision, Seeborg repeatedly adopted the language used by Bonta and environmentalist groups in their lawsuit, asserting the case is about "Exxon's ... self-interested and deceptive promotion of plastics recycling program."
Richard Seeborg
| cand.uscourts.gov
Seeborg was appointed to the federal bench by former President Barack Obama.
The judge paused his order remanding the case to state court for 42 days, giving ExxonMobil a chance to appeal the ruling.
The actions against ExxonMobil landed in court in September 2024.
Bonta filed a lawsuit on behalf of the state of California. That lawsuit was accompanied by a separate, but similar action from a collection of left-wing environmental activist groups including the Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, Heal the Bay Inc., and Baykeeper Inc.
Specifically, the lawsuits took aim at ExxonMobil's claims concerning the benefits and effectiveness of its so-called "advanced recycling" systems.
ExxonMobil has proclaimed its chemical "advanced recycling" process, which the company says it "pioneered," will revolutionize recycling efforts in the U.S. and beyond, allowing a wide array of plastic products, which traditionally have been difficult or impossible to recycle, to be broken down and reformed into other useable goods "essential to our modern way of life."
Bonta and environmental activists, however, have asserted those claims are overblown, at best.
In the lawsuits, Bonta and his activist allies said ExxonMobil has "deceived Californians" and others "for more than half a century by promising recycling could and would solve the ever-growing plastic waste crisis."
However, they asserted ExxonMobil has known all along that even its "advanced recycling" process would "never be able to process more than a tiny fraction of the plastic waste it produces."
ExxonMobil responded by attempting to remove the case from San Francisco County court to federal court, which operates under more stringent evidentiary rules which businesses prefer over the looser legal rules which critics have noted produce plaintiff-friendly venues unfriendly to business in state courts, like California's.
At the same time, ExxonMobil fired back in court, as well, lodging an action in Texas federal court accusing Bonta of conspiring with anti-oil and anti-plastic activists to launch "a false media campaign against ExxonMobil's reputation and character ... with false accusations of being a 'liar' and declarations that advanced recycling is a 'myth' and a 'sham.'"
They further noted activists have routinely accused the company of "polluting with impunity" and even of "homicide."
ExxonMobil has asserted Bonta's lawsuit and anti-plastics campaign came as an about-face for the state of California, which for decades had been among the strongest proponents of recycling.
"Why would Mr. Bonta or anyone who claims to be serious about cleaning up the environment and helping solve the plastic waste issue take such extreme measures to shut down the emerging and developing advanced recycling industry?" ExxonMobil wrote in its Texas lawsuit.
"The answer is foreign influence, personal ambition, and a murky source of financing rife with conflicting business interests."
That case remains pending. Neither Bonta nor any of the other activist defendants have yet responded to the complaint, according to online court records.
Meanwhile, Bonta and the activists have sought to return their lawsuits to San Francisco County Superior Court.
Seeborg granted that request, saying ExxonMobil could establish no grounds under federal law to keep the case in federal court.
In a prepared statement issued after the ruling was issued, Bonta said: “ExxonMobil has been deceiving the public to convince us that plastic recycling could solve the plastic waste and pollution crisis when they knew this wasn’t possible. We are pleased with the Court’s decision to remand our plastic deception case against ExxonMobil to state court where it rightfully belongs."