City Of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corporation
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-04807
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In City of New York v. Exxon Mobil, Judge Caproni lifted the stay and denied the remand motion without prejudice, allowing refiling.
The City of New York and Exxon Mobil Corporation; the order also affected the case’s scheduling and pending motion.
What happened
In The City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, the court had paused the case while awaiting a Second Circuit decision in a related proceeding. The City then asked the court to lift the pause and decide its pending request to send the case to state court.
The court lifted the stay. It denied the City’s motion to remand without prejudice and with leave to refile, allowing the City to submit the motion again in light of the Second Circuit’s decision. The court set deadlines for the renewed motion, Exxon Mobil’s response, and the City’s reply.
Judge Valerie Caproni also directed the clerk to terminate the open motion on the docket. The order did not decide whether the case should ultimately be sent to state court.
The detailed version
- City Of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corporation · No. 1:21-cv-04807
- Valerie Caproni
- Oct. 4, 2023
Background
The City of New York had filed a motion to remand, meaning a request to send the case back to state court. On November 12, 2021, the court stayed, or paused, all proceedings while awaiting the Second Circuit’s decision in a related proceeding involving Exxon Mobil. On September 27, 2023, the Second Circuit affirmed the related district court order remanding that case to state court. On October 2, 2023, the City asked this court to lift the stay and decide its pending remand motion.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that the stay of all proceedings was lifted. The court denied the City’s motion to remand to state court without prejudice and with leave to refile. The City was permitted to resubmit the motion in light of the Second Circuit’s decision by October 20, 2023. Exxon Mobil’s response was due November 14, 2023, and the City’s reply was due December 8, 2023.
The court also directed the clerk to terminate the open motion at docket entry 37. This order did not resolve the ultimate question whether the case should be remanded to state court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.