Description: Action by Exxon Mobil Corporation to quash subpoena issued by the U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General in climate change investigation.
-
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Walker
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/29/2016 Stipulation Download Joint stipulation of dismissal filed. Virgin Islands Withdrew Subpoena as ExxonMobil Agreed to Dismissal of Lawsuit. On June 29, 2016, Exxon Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil) and the Attorney General for the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) told the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas that they had reached an agreement pursuant to which the Attorney General would withdraw the subpoena issued to ExxonMobil in March 2016 and ExxonMobil would dismiss its lawsuit against the Attorney General. In the lawsuit, ExxonMobil had alleged that the USVI Attorney General’s subpoena—issued the investigation under the territory’s Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act into suspected misrepresentations regarding ExxonMobil’s contributions to climate change—violated ExxonMobil’s constitutional rights and common law due process. 06/21/2016 Order Download Order issued. The federal court denied ExxonMobil’s motion to remand the action to state court. 06/20/2016 Reply Download Reply submitted in support of motion to remand. 05/23/2016 Brief Download Motion to remand filed. ExxonMobil Asked Federal Court to Remand Subpoena Action to Texas State Court. ExxonMobil asked the federal court to remand the action to state court and to award it costs and fees. ExxonMobil argued that the federal court did not have jurisdiction because its action was a pre-enforcement challenge to the subpoena that would be treated as unripe under Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent. ExxonMobil contended that Texas state courts had a more expansive conception of ripeness for declaratory judgment actions and would exercise jurisdiction over the action. 05/18/2016 Notice Download Virgin Islands filed notice of removal. Virgin Islands Removed ExxonMobil Lawsuit to Federal Court. The United States Virgin Islands (USVI) attorney general removed Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (ExxonMobil's) action to quash a subpoena issued in the USVI attorney general's climate change investigation to federal court, asserting that there was federal question jurisdiction over ExxonMobil’s federal constitutional and statutory claims and supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. -
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Walker
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/16/2016 Not Available Download Plea in intervention filed by Texas and Alabama. Alabama and Texas Intervened in ExxonMobil Lawsuit to Quash Virgin Islands Subpoena. The States of Alabama and Texas intervened in the Texas state court action brought by Exxon Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil) to quash the subpoena issued by the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) Office of the Attorney General. The USVI attorney general issued the subpoena in its investigation of whether ExxonMobil misrepresented its contributions to climate change to defraud consumers and the government. In their plea in intervention, Alabama and Texas said that their “sovereign power and investigative and prosecutorial authority” were implicated by the USVI attorney general’s tactics. Alabama and Texas asserted that the USVI attorney general’s representation by a private law firm in the proceeding and the potential use of contingency fees in a criminal or quasi-criminal matter raised due process considerations that they had an interest in protecting. 04/13/2016 Petition Download Petition for declaratory relief filed. ExxonMobil Filed Lawsuit in Texas to Block Enforcement of Virgin Islands Climate Change Subpoena. Exxon Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil) filed a lawsuit in a Texas state court against the Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI), whose office had issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil under the territory’s Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The subpoena said that ExxonMobil misrepresented its contributions to climate change to defraud consumers and the government. ExxonMobil’s petition for declaratory relief asserted that the subpoena was “a pretextual use of law enforcement power to deter ExxonMobil from participating in ongoing public deliberations about climate change and to fish through decades of ExxonMobil’s documents with the hope of finding some ammunition to enhance” the attorney general’s policy stance. The lawsuit also named a Washington law firm that represented the attorney general and one of the law firm’s lawyers as defendants. ExxonMobil alleged causes of action for violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as abuse of process under common law. The petition sought a declaration that the subpoena was unenforceable.