Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Healey

Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) filed a notice of appeal on April 20, 2018, three weeks after the federal district court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the company’s lawsuit seeking to bar the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general from pursuing their investigations of Exxon’s climate change-related disclosures.

The federal district court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Exxon Mobil Corporation’s action against the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general. Exxon alleged that the investigations of the attorneys general into Exxon’s climate change-related disclosures were part of a conspiracy to “silence and intimidate one side of the public policy debate on how to address climate change.” Exxon asserted that the attorneys general had violated its constitutional rights, and that the investigations were preempted, violated the dormant Commerce Clause, and constituted common law abuse of process. The court found that “Exxon’s allegations that the [attorneys general] are pursuing bad faith investigations in order to violate Exxon’s constitutional rights are implausible and therefore must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.” The court also found that Exxon had not plausibly alleged essential elements of a dormant Commerce Claim and that its preemption claim also failed. In addition, the court found that it had personal jurisdiction over the Massachusetts attorney general but that res judicata barred the claims against her, based on an ongoing proceeding in Massachusetts state court.

–

The federal district court for the Northern District of Texas transferred Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) lawsuit challenging climate change investigations by the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general to the Southern District of New York. The Texas federal court said that the Southern District of New York was the proper venue because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Exxon’s claims occurred in New York City at the AGs United for Clean Power press conference on March 29, 2016. The Texas federal court continued to express concerns about the motives of the attorneys general for commencing their investigations, citing evidence offered by Exxon that the attorneys general acted to further their own political goals in conjunction with the 2016 national election. The court also asked whether the reluctance of the attorneys general to disclose information shared at the March 2016 meeting and information shared after state attorneys general entered into a Climate Change Coalition Common Interest Agreement suggested the attorneys general were “trying to hide something from the public.” The court also noted Exxon’s assertions that the New York attorney general’s investigation had shifted in focus from focusing on historic climate change research to Exxon’s disclosures regarding oil and gas reserves and assets, which Exxon said indicated that the attorney general was “searching for a way to have leverage over Exxon in the public policy debate about climate change.” The court indicated that if the attorney general was “genuinely concerned about seeking protection for New York’s citizens for Exxon’s possible securities fraud regarding its oil and gas reserves and assets,” then he could seek protection for them in a securities class action, <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/ramirez-v-exxon-mobil-corp/">Ramirez v. Exxon Mobil Corp.</a>, currently pending before the court.

–

–

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) appeal of a district court’s dismissal of Exxon’s lawsuit asserting that the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general engaged in viewpoint discrimination and violated Exxon’s constitutional rights by pursuing investigations of Exxon’s allegedly deceptive speech regarding climate change. The Second Circuit concluded that Exxon’s claims against the New York Attorney General were moot because the Attorney General had concluded its investigation and Exxon had prevailed in the subsequent state court enforcement <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/people-v-exxon-mobil-corporation/">action</a> that the Attorney General brought. The Second Circuit further found that Exxon “failed to establish a reasonable expectation that the conduct at issue” (the Attorney General’s fraud investigation) would recur, particularly because the Attorney General decided not to appeal the decision in favor of Exxon. The Second Circuit also rejected Exxon’s contention that injunctive relief was still available because the federal court could order the return or destruction of documents produced in discovery or the appointment of a monitor. In addition, the Second Circuit found that Exxon’s request for a declaratory judgment did not constitute a claim for prospective relief to remedy an ongoing constitutional violation. The Second Circuit also agreed with the district court that the doctrine of res judicata precluded Exxon’s claims against the Massachusetts Attorney General because Exxon could have raised its claims in an earlier state court <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/in-re-civil-investigative-demand-no-2016-epd-36/">proceeding</a> in Massachusetts.

–

–

On December 9, the Massachusetts attorney general asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for an emergency stay of discovery pending the Fifth Circuit’s disposition of the attorney general’s petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s jurisdictional discovery orders, in which the district court raised concerns regarding whether the attorney general commenced her investigation of Exxon in good faith. The Massachusetts attorney general filed the petition for writ of mandamus after the district court denied her motion for reconsideration of the jurisdictional discovery order and her request for stay of discovery and vacatur and reconsideration of the order requiring her to appear for the deposition.

–