Weeks after a federal judge in California ruled a climate lawsuit brought by the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations belongs in federal court, the group has voluntarily dismissed its case. It appears that the plaintiff and its law firm Sher Edling would rather dismiss the case than risk an unfavorable defeat in federal court.

The move represents a blow to Sher Edling and the broader litigation campaign. The case was the sole lawsuit brought by a trade association and its dismissal shines a light on the law firm’s flawed strategy: bring as many cases from as many different angles as possible, regardless of their merits. It’s also the latest setback for cases in California, which have faced a number of struggles over the years – a reality that may have kept previous California attorney generals from filing.

Last week’s dismissal marks the end, for now, of PCFFA’s lawsuit. The trade organization filed suit in November 2018 with Sher Edling as outside counsel, which came as no surprise since PCFFA’s former executive director left the association in 2017 to join the firm just as it was getting off the ground.

The case was plagued by skepticism and internal discord from the very beginning. While the lawsuit alleged that climate change had caused “disastrous” impacts on local crab fishing grounds, the San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2018 that “fishermen and industry watchers expect[ed] a good crab year with a fairly consistent supply.” Some members of the association even spoke out to The Guardian about the hypocrisy of suing fossil fuel companies for producing the products they rely on to power their fishing boats:

“How do we run our engines without oil? How do we fish without oil? Electricity? I’m a small vessel. I’m only 68 tons and my God, I don’t know how that would work.’” (emphasis added)

The oil company defendants successfully removed the lawsuit to federal court in 2018, where the case has sat on hold pending the resolution of the state vs. federal court question, resolved earlier this year. Since then, the plaintiffs and Sher Edling have been fighting for the case to be remanded to state court, which the plaintiffs think is a more favorable venue. But last month, in a major blow to the climate litigation campaign, a federal judge in California denied the motion for remand, finding the lawsuit qualifies as a federal class action case.

In his November decision, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria was firm in his insistence that the PCFFA case belongs in federal court and even called one of Sher Edling’s key arguments for remand “frivolous,” as POLITICO reported:

“’I can’t really believe that we’re spending time on this,’ Chhabria told association lawyer Katie Jones of San Francisco, rebuking her for insisting that the lawsuit does not amount to a federal class-action case.”

PCFFA’s case is the second to be voluntarily dismissed – King County, OR pulled its climate lawsuit in September 2021 with no explanation and never re-filed despite speculation that the county might try to reengineer its complaint.

Bottom Line: When Judge Chhabria refused PCFFA’s request to remand the case to state court, he suggested that PCFFA and Sher Edling had made a “mistake” in framing their complaint and a “possible amended complaint” could avoid the pitfalls of the original lawsuit. But with nothing to show six years later, it’s yet to be seen if PCFFA members have the funds or the patience to start from scratch with a new climate suit.