California Sues Carmakers (including Toyota)
09-23-06, 12:53 PM
#62
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-23-06, 02:09 PM
#63
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
Ally McBeal
Oooh - memories! That was like the very 1st episode of Ally McBeal that I ever saw: when Haley Joel Osmond was dying & wanted to sue God/Church --- they made a pretty good argument. That is when I fell in love w/ the show & Ling Woo 
Back on topic: I think that it would make a bit more sense to sue car drivers who actually polluted the environment rather than the carmakers ... eh, I am sure there is an ulterior motive for this lawsuit.
Back on topic: I think that it would make a bit more sense to sue car drivers who actually polluted the environment rather than the carmakers ... eh, I am sure there is an ulterior motive for this lawsuit.
09-24-06, 12:14 AM
#64
Hey, to everyone in California... there are other states in the US that aren't like this 
We all have lower standards of living, less traffic, no emissions testing, and hotter women. We open our arms to you; move out of California.
Try Alabama or Florida. Hell if you don't mind minor emissions stuff; Texas and Georgia are great states as well. Texas is the state with the most personal liberty in the Union. You can shoot someone just for coming onto your property. In California, good luck even owning a gun legally.
We all have lower standards of living, less traffic, no emissions testing, and hotter women. We open our arms to you; move out of California.
Try Alabama or Florida. Hell if you don't mind minor emissions stuff; Texas and Georgia are great states as well. Texas is the state with the most personal liberty in the Union. You can shoot someone just for coming onto your property. In California, good luck even owning a gun legally.
09-24-06, 06:16 AM
#65
Super Moderator
Hey, to everyone in California... there are other states in the US that aren't like this
We all have lower standards of living, less traffic, no emissions testing, and hotter women. We open our arms to you; move out of California.
Try Alabama or Florida. Hell if you don't mind minor emissions stuff; Texas and Georgia are great states as well. Texas is the state with the most personal liberty in the Union. You can shoot someone just for coming onto your property. In California, good luck even owning a gun legally.
We all have lower standards of living, less traffic, no emissions testing, and hotter women. We open our arms to you; move out of California.
Try Alabama or Florida. Hell if you don't mind minor emissions stuff; Texas and Georgia are great states as well. Texas is the state with the most personal liberty in the Union. You can shoot someone just for coming onto your property. In California, good luck even owning a gun legally.
Had several friends move there after college in Florida and they love it.Thing I like about my home state of Florida are no state income taxes, no state inspections or emissions testing (we had them and they are not coming back).
09-27-06, 05:54 AM
#66
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
Related Story
LawSuit on AutoEmissions Advances
General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Ford Motor Co. and other automakers have won a court bid to challenge California rules limiting tailpipe emissions linked to global warming.
A federal judge in Fresno, in a ruling filed Monday, turned down California's request to dismiss the case, saying the issues raised by the auto companies in the 2004 lawsuit should be decided in a trial.
U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii did not rule on the merits of the case. A trial is scheduled for Jan. 16.
The auto industry sued California in 2004 to block a law that mandates a nearly 30% reduction in heat-trapping gases emitted by passenger cars and trucks.
"We are disappointed that this lawsuit must move forward and that we are forced to devote resources to defend California's right to fight against global warming," said Teresa Schilling, a spokeswoman for Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer.
Thirteen Fresno-area car dealers and the Washington-based Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers say in their suit that the federal government has sole authority to set emissions standards and that California's rules would require them to spend billions of dollars to redesign vehicles specifically for sale in the state.
The alliance represents GM, Toyota and Ford, as well as DaimlerChrysler, BMW, Mazda Motor Corp., Mitsubishi Motors Corp., Porsche and Volkswagen.
The rules would take effect in model year 2009, for which passenger cars and trucks are now being designed.
Ishii said that the automakers' claims that California's rules are preempted by federal requirements should go to trial.
He dismissed the companies' claims that the rules interfere with interstate commerce and violate antitrust laws.
General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Ford Motor Co. and other automakers have won a court bid to challenge California rules limiting tailpipe emissions linked to global warming.
A federal judge in Fresno, in a ruling filed Monday, turned down California's request to dismiss the case, saying the issues raised by the auto companies in the 2004 lawsuit should be decided in a trial.
U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii did not rule on the merits of the case. A trial is scheduled for Jan. 16.
The auto industry sued California in 2004 to block a law that mandates a nearly 30% reduction in heat-trapping gases emitted by passenger cars and trucks.
"We are disappointed that this lawsuit must move forward and that we are forced to devote resources to defend California's right to fight against global warming," said Teresa Schilling, a spokeswoman for Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer.
Thirteen Fresno-area car dealers and the Washington-based Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers say in their suit that the federal government has sole authority to set emissions standards and that California's rules would require them to spend billions of dollars to redesign vehicles specifically for sale in the state.
The alliance represents GM, Toyota and Ford, as well as DaimlerChrysler, BMW, Mazda Motor Corp., Mitsubishi Motors Corp., Porsche and Volkswagen.
The rules would take effect in model year 2009, for which passenger cars and trucks are now being designed.
Ishii said that the automakers' claims that California's rules are preempted by federal requirements should go to trial.
He dismissed the companies' claims that the rules interfere with interstate commerce and violate antitrust laws.
09-27-06, 09:11 AM
#67
Super Moderator
LawSuit on AutoEmissions Advances
General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Ford Motor Co. and other automakers have won a court bid to challenge California rules limiting tailpipe emissions linked to global warming.
A federal judge in Fresno, in a ruling filed Monday, turned down California's request to dismiss the case, saying the issues raised by the auto companies in the 2004 lawsuit should be decided in a trial.
U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii did not rule on the merits of the case. A trial is scheduled for Jan. 16.
The auto industry sued California in 2004 to block a law that mandates a nearly 30% reduction in heat-trapping gases emitted by passenger cars and trucks.
"We are disappointed that this lawsuit must move forward and that we are forced to devote resources to defend California's right to fight against global warming," said Teresa Schilling, a spokeswoman for Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer.
Thirteen Fresno-area car dealers and the Washington-based Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers say in their suit that the federal government has sole authority to set emissions standards and that California's rules would require them to spend billions of dollars to redesign vehicles specifically for sale in the state.
The alliance represents GM, Toyota and Ford, as well as DaimlerChrysler, BMW, Mazda Motor Corp., Mitsubishi Motors Corp., Porsche and Volkswagen.
The rules would take effect in model year 2009, for which passenger cars and trucks are now being designed.
Ishii said that the automakers' claims that California's rules are preempted by federal requirements should go to trial.
He dismissed the companies' claims that the rules interfere with interstate commerce and violate antitrust laws.
General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Ford Motor Co. and other automakers have won a court bid to challenge California rules limiting tailpipe emissions linked to global warming.
A federal judge in Fresno, in a ruling filed Monday, turned down California's request to dismiss the case, saying the issues raised by the auto companies in the 2004 lawsuit should be decided in a trial.
U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii did not rule on the merits of the case. A trial is scheduled for Jan. 16.
The auto industry sued California in 2004 to block a law that mandates a nearly 30% reduction in heat-trapping gases emitted by passenger cars and trucks.
"We are disappointed that this lawsuit must move forward and that we are forced to devote resources to defend California's right to fight against global warming," said Teresa Schilling, a spokeswoman for Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer.
Thirteen Fresno-area car dealers and the Washington-based Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers say in their suit that the federal government has sole authority to set emissions standards and that California's rules would require them to spend billions of dollars to redesign vehicles specifically for sale in the state.
The alliance represents GM, Toyota and Ford, as well as DaimlerChrysler, BMW, Mazda Motor Corp., Mitsubishi Motors Corp., Porsche and Volkswagen.
The rules would take effect in model year 2009, for which passenger cars and trucks are now being designed.
Ishii said that the automakers' claims that California's rules are preempted by federal requirements should go to trial.
He dismissed the companies' claims that the rules interfere with interstate commerce and violate antitrust laws.
This purely a case of a conflict between state and federal law.
09-27-06, 09:40 AM
#68
Pole Position
Hey, to everyone in California... there are other states in the US that aren't like this
We all have lower standards of living, less traffic, no emissions testing, and hotter women. We open our arms to you; move out of California.
Try Alabama or Florida. Hell if you don't mind minor emissions stuff; Texas and Georgia are great states as well. Texas is the state with the most personal liberty in the Union. You can shoot someone just for coming onto your property. In California, good luck even owning a gun legally.
We all have lower standards of living, less traffic, no emissions testing, and hotter women. We open our arms to you; move out of California.
Try Alabama or Florida. Hell if you don't mind minor emissions stuff; Texas and Georgia are great states as well. Texas is the state with the most personal liberty in the Union. You can shoot someone just for coming onto your property. In California, good luck even owning a gun legally.
09-18-07, 04:33 AM
#69
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
Update
Federal Judge Tosses CA Lawsuit
Calling it a political question, judge throws out an attempt to hold six automakers accountable for carbon dioxide emissions
Cheryl Miller
The Recorder
September 18, 2007
A federal judge has dismissed California's global warming lawsuit against six automakers, saying the issues raised in the nuisance claim should be addressed by lawmakers and not the court.
The state "has failed to provide the court with sufficient explanation or legal support as to how this court could impose damages against the defendant automakers without unreasonably encroaching into the global warming issues currently under consideration by the political branches," Judge Martin Jenkins said in a 24-page ruling issued Monday.
The first-of-its-kind lawsuit, filed by then-California Attorney General Bill Lockyer one year ago, sought to hold Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Nissan and Toyota liable for the environmental harm their cars and trucks produce. Lockyer and his successor, Jerry Brown, argued that cars are the source of more than 30 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in California, making the defendants "one of the largest contributors to global warming" in the state.
"Of course we're disappointed. We're evaluating what to do next," said Kenneth Alex, supervising deputy attorney general. Alex said he understood the judge's concerns about wading into the global warming issue, "But we do think it's such an important issue to the people of this state that we think it's an appropriate case for the court to make a decision. We don't think it's just a case for the Congress and the executive branch."
"Our bottom-line point in this case is that global warming presents exceedingly complex questions that need to be addressed at the national and international levels, not through a lawsuit," said Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Boutrous Jr., who represented the carmakers.
Critics blasted Lockyer for filing the lawsuit just weeks before the 2006 election, where he easily won the contest for state treasurer. Brown raised eyebrows just a few months later when he announced that, while he would fight the automakers' efforts to have the lawsuit tossed out, he had invited the companies' executives into settlement talks.
"They didn't move forward," said Boutrous. "But maybe not having this lawsuit hanging over our heads now will open up the dialogue."
Monday's ruling marks the first major environmental law loss for Brown, who has made global warming a cornerstone of his administration's agenda. He largely sidestepped Republican efforts to curb his authority to sue over greenhouse gas emissions. And last month he signed a novel settlement with San Bernardino County leaders requiring the fast-growing Inland Empire region to set targets for cutting emissions.
Brown's office is still fighting a separate lawsuit filed by automakers that challenges a 2005 state law regulating tailpipe emissions.
Ironically, Jenkins cited the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007), in tossing out the state's nuisance suit against the carmakers. Environmentalists hailed the Massachusetts ruling for holding that the EPA -- contrary to what the Bush administration had argued -- does have authority to curb greenhouse gas emissions in new cars.
Brown argued that the Massachusetts decision authorizes a state to pursue damages in federal court for injuries caused by global warming. But Jenkins called that argument "unconvincing."
"The underpinnings of the Supreme Court's rationale in Massachusetts only reinforce this court's conclusion that plaintiff's current tort claim would require this court to make the precise initial carbon dioxide policy determinations that should be made by the political branches, and to the extent that such determination falls under the [Clean Air Act], by the EPA."
Calling it a political question, judge throws out an attempt to hold six automakers accountable for carbon dioxide emissions
Cheryl Miller
The Recorder
September 18, 2007
A federal judge has dismissed California's global warming lawsuit against six automakers, saying the issues raised in the nuisance claim should be addressed by lawmakers and not the court.
The state "has failed to provide the court with sufficient explanation or legal support as to how this court could impose damages against the defendant automakers without unreasonably encroaching into the global warming issues currently under consideration by the political branches," Judge Martin Jenkins said in a 24-page ruling issued Monday.
The first-of-its-kind lawsuit, filed by then-California Attorney General Bill Lockyer one year ago, sought to hold Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Nissan and Toyota liable for the environmental harm their cars and trucks produce. Lockyer and his successor, Jerry Brown, argued that cars are the source of more than 30 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in California, making the defendants "one of the largest contributors to global warming" in the state.
"Of course we're disappointed. We're evaluating what to do next," said Kenneth Alex, supervising deputy attorney general. Alex said he understood the judge's concerns about wading into the global warming issue, "But we do think it's such an important issue to the people of this state that we think it's an appropriate case for the court to make a decision. We don't think it's just a case for the Congress and the executive branch."
"Our bottom-line point in this case is that global warming presents exceedingly complex questions that need to be addressed at the national and international levels, not through a lawsuit," said Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Boutrous Jr., who represented the carmakers.
Critics blasted Lockyer for filing the lawsuit just weeks before the 2006 election, where he easily won the contest for state treasurer. Brown raised eyebrows just a few months later when he announced that, while he would fight the automakers' efforts to have the lawsuit tossed out, he had invited the companies' executives into settlement talks.
"They didn't move forward," said Boutrous. "But maybe not having this lawsuit hanging over our heads now will open up the dialogue."
Monday's ruling marks the first major environmental law loss for Brown, who has made global warming a cornerstone of his administration's agenda. He largely sidestepped Republican efforts to curb his authority to sue over greenhouse gas emissions. And last month he signed a novel settlement with San Bernardino County leaders requiring the fast-growing Inland Empire region to set targets for cutting emissions.
Brown's office is still fighting a separate lawsuit filed by automakers that challenges a 2005 state law regulating tailpipe emissions.
Ironically, Jenkins cited the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007), in tossing out the state's nuisance suit against the carmakers. Environmentalists hailed the Massachusetts ruling for holding that the EPA -- contrary to what the Bush administration had argued -- does have authority to curb greenhouse gas emissions in new cars.
Brown argued that the Massachusetts decision authorizes a state to pursue damages in federal court for injuries caused by global warming. But Jenkins called that argument "unconvincing."
"The underpinnings of the Supreme Court's rationale in Massachusetts only reinforce this court's conclusion that plaintiff's current tort claim would require this court to make the precise initial carbon dioxide policy determinations that should be made by the political branches, and to the extent that such determination falls under the [Clean Air Act], by the EPA."
09-18-07, 05:36 AM
#70
Lexus Fanatic
I'm not sure Arnold saw this coming..........or if he does in fact support it.
Arnold currently owes his OWN job, as governor, largely to the ridiculous anti-automobile actions taken by his predecessor, Gray Davis, and the state's near-bankrupcy. He just may order this state lawsuit withdrawn...he is Lockyer's superior and has the authority to do so (no matter what his wife thinks).
And, let's face it.........in his case, sleeping in a separate bed for a couple of nights without any action is clearly preferable to another voter recall.
Arnold currently owes his OWN job, as governor, largely to the ridiculous anti-automobile actions taken by his predecessor, Gray Davis, and the state's near-bankrupcy. He just may order this state lawsuit withdrawn...he is Lockyer's superior and has the authority to do so (no matter what his wife thinks).
And, let's face it.........in his case, sleeping in a separate bed for a couple of nights without any action is clearly preferable to another voter recall.
Last edited by mmarshall; 09-18-07 at 05:40 AM.
09-18-07, 07:57 AM
#71
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: northern ca
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, you know what they say...
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Even if their intentions are good (addressing global warming), they will undoubtedly have negative consequences. I can think of a couple of scenarios:
1) Litigation is going to cost money (on both sides) - someone is going to have to pay. CA residents will pay state litigation charges and consumers and investors everywhere will have to pay the manufacturers'.
2) What is the proposed solution - cover the costs to address beach erosion and what not? Someone's going to pay for that as well (see #1).
3) Radically limit the choice of the vehicles sold (to prevent sale of gas guzzlers). This would not sit well with the public and it will open up an opportunity for smaller auto manufacturers to sell the same gas guzzlers, but with less competition (consumer loses, again).
I understand that some time litigation is necessary to get the attention of the other party - but we're talking about something that is completely legal here
.
What's next on CA's plate?:
1) Sue farmers for agricultural runoff and greenhouse gases released by cows.
2) Sue pharmaceutical companies for polluting the environment.
3) Sue logging companies for cutting down the trees.
4) Sue mining companies to mining the minerals, which pollutes the environment.
5) Sue software companies for consuming electricity to run their computers and networks and thus contributing to global warming.
6) Sue the power plants for producing electricity (conventional ones for releasing greenhouse gases and nuclear ones because they're bad for the environment) and thus contributing to global warming.
7) Sue ... (put your pet cause here) ...
All this will surely have a negative impact on business and investment in the state, long-term.
It is bad for business!!! All of it.
And I am sure that someone way on top knows it - and allows it. Which means that it is done on purpose.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Even if their intentions are good (addressing global warming), they will undoubtedly have negative consequences. I can think of a couple of scenarios:
1) Litigation is going to cost money (on both sides) - someone is going to have to pay. CA residents will pay state litigation charges and consumers and investors everywhere will have to pay the manufacturers'.
2) What is the proposed solution - cover the costs to address beach erosion and what not? Someone's going to pay for that as well (see #1).
3) Radically limit the choice of the vehicles sold (to prevent sale of gas guzzlers). This would not sit well with the public and it will open up an opportunity for smaller auto manufacturers to sell the same gas guzzlers, but with less competition (consumer loses, again).
I understand that some time litigation is necessary to get the attention of the other party - but we're talking about something that is completely legal here
.What's next on CA's plate?:
1) Sue farmers for agricultural runoff and greenhouse gases released by cows.
2) Sue pharmaceutical companies for polluting the environment.
3) Sue logging companies for cutting down the trees.
4) Sue mining companies to mining the minerals, which pollutes the environment.
5) Sue software companies for consuming electricity to run their computers and networks and thus contributing to global warming.
6) Sue the power plants for producing electricity (conventional ones for releasing greenhouse gases and nuclear ones because they're bad for the environment) and thus contributing to global warming.
7) Sue ... (put your pet cause here) ...
All this will surely have a negative impact on business and investment in the state, long-term.
It is bad for business!!! All of it.
And I am sure that someone way on top knows it - and allows it. Which means that it is done on purpose.
09-18-07, 01:25 PM
#74
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
Just another Liberal money grab foiled by a sane judge.
09-18-07, 01:47 PM
#75
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
It would have been really interesting to have the State prove the whole greenhouse effect's viability considering a large number of scientists have abandoned the belief that the current global warming is primarily caused by human activity.
There's going to be a lot of crow in a very short time when the temperatures drop fast as they have consistently throughout history after a warming trend.
There's going to be a lot of crow in a very short time when the temperatures drop fast as they have consistently throughout history after a warming trend.