Local environmental groups and the state attorney general are challenging a decision by the federal government to move a lawsuit involving Sable Offshore Corp. to federal court.
On Monday, the Environmental Defense Center and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed separate challenges against moving the case from state courts to federal court, saying the decision violates state jurisdiction.
The EDC represents multiple groups, including Get Oil Out!, the Santa Barbara County Action Network, the Sierra Club and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper.
The decision to move the case came a week before Sable was set to appear in court to defend itself against claims that the company violated a court order by restarting oil production through the Santa Ynez Unit, which includes offshore platforms, a processing facility and transportation pipelines in Santa Barbara County.
Sable had argued that an injunction preventing the pipeline was not valid after oversight of the pipeline had transferred hands. The injunction was placed on the pipeline after it ruptured in 2015, causing the Refugio oil spill.
Judge Donna Geck from Santa Barbara County Superior Court ruled against Sable, saying the injunction will remain in place.
The hearing was originally set for Friday before it was moved.
The injunction required the company to file a restart plan to the Office of the State Fire Marshal for approval before a restart could begin.
In its filing, the EDC called Sable’s request a “Hail Mary” and claimed the company had already missed the deadline to ask for the case to be moved to a different court. Sable would have needed to submit its request in April, according to the EDC.
Additionally, the group argued that the case should not be transferred to federal court because the case does not name any federal officials nor agencies.
“Instead, the action was filed in state court against a state agency and the officer in charge of that agency … to enforce their obligations under state law,” the court records claimed.
The documents from the state attorney general echoed that argument and argue that a judge already ruled that Sable’s arguments to remove the injunction lack merit.
“So now Sable, and its allies in the federal government, want to try again with the same arguments in front of a different judge. This court should not give weight to Sable’s interest in untimely forum shopping,” the documents said.
One of the pipelines owned by Sable is the same pipeline that ruptured in 2015, causing the Refugio spill that dumped thousands of gallons of crude oil into the ocean and onto the shore.
The company has been working to restart oil production at the facility since 2024, but it faced challenges from local environmental groups, including the EDC.
Sable petitioned the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to assume oversight of the pipelines by claiming that the pipelines are interstate lines. The lines do not leave the state of California.
PHMSA agreed with Sable and took over regulatory oversight from the OSFM.
The company argued that since the pipeline is under federal oversight, the state has no authority to regulate it.
However, Geck, the Superior Court judge, ruled that Sable is required to receive approval from the OSFM before it can start the pipeline.
Sable was eventually given orders to begin production by President Donald Trump and the Department of Energy under the Defense Production Act. The company restarted production on one of its three offshore platforms and plans to expand production in the coming months.
