Description: Exxon Mobil Corporation petition seeking pre-suit depositions and documents in anticipation of potential claims of abuse of process, conspiracy, infringement of Exxon's rights in connection with California municipalities' climate change lawsuits.
-
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. City of San Francisco
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/18/2022 Order Download Petition for review denied. Texas Supreme Court Denied Exxon’s Request to Review Finding of No Personal Jurisdiction Over California Municipal Plaintiffs in Climate Cases. The Texas Supreme Court denied Exxon Mobil Corporation’s petition for review of an intermediate appellate court’s decision that held that Texas courts did not have personal jurisdiction over California municipalities and municipal officials and an attorney who originally represented San Francisco and Oakland in their climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies. Exxon sought pre-suit discovery against these parties to determine whether the lawsuits were brought “to suppress the Texas energy sector’s Texas-based speech and associational activities regarding climate change and to gain access to documents that Exxon keeps in Texas.” The lower appellate court found that the parties lacked the requisite minimum contacts with Texas to be subject to personal jurisdiction. 01/25/2022 Letter Download Letter filed by Blake A. Hawthorne to join brief of amicus curiae Murry B. Cohen. 01/24/2022 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amicus curiae Murry B. Cohen filed. 01/18/2022 Reply Download Reply brief on the merits filed by petitioner. 12/01/2021 Brief Download Brief on the merits filed by respondent Matthew Pawa. 12/01/2021 Brief Download Brief on the merits filed by governmental respondents. 09/10/2021 Brief Download Brief filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation on the merits of granting review. Exxon and Texas Governor Argued that Texas Supreme Court Should Hear Case Concerning Jurisdiction over California Municipalities. Exxon Mobil Corporation filed a brief in the Texas Supreme Court arguing that the court should review the decision of an intermediate appellate court that held that Texas courts did not have personal jurisdiction over California municipalities and municipal officials and an attorney who originally represented San Francisco and Oakland in their climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies. Exxon had filed a petition seeking pre-suit discovery against these parties to determine whether their lawsuits were “baseless and brought in bad faith as a pretext to suppress the Texas energy sector’s Texas-based speech and associational activities regarding climate change and to gain access to documents that Exxon keeps in Texas.” Exxon’s arguments included that the Texas Supreme Court should hear the case to confirm that the municipalities’ lawsuits were aimed at chilling speech by the Texas energy sector on climate change and that this constituted meaningful contacts with the Texas forum. 05/06/2021 Amicus Brief Download Letter brief filed by Texas governor as amicus curiae in support of the petitioner. Texas Governor Greg Abbott submitted a letter brief as amicus curiae in support of granting review, writing that “[w]hen out-of-state officials try to project their power across our border, as respondents have done by broadly targeting the speech of an industry crucial to Texas, they cannot use personal jurisdiction to scamper out of our courts and retreat across state lines.” 10/02/2020 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. ExxonMobil Asked Texas Supreme Court to Review Denial of Presuit Discovery Against California Cities and Counties. Exxon Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil) filed a petition in the Texas Supreme Court seeking review of an intermediate appellate court’s reversal of a trial court order that permitted ExxonMobil to seek presuit discovery against California cities and counties that had filed lawsuits in California to hold ExxonMobil and other energy companies liable for the impacts of climate change. ExxonMobil sought to conduct the discovery—which also would extend to California local officials and an outside attorney—“to evaluate potential claims for constitutional violations, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy” arising from “an alleged conspiracy … to use tort lawsuits against ExxonMobil and seventeen other Texas-based energy companies as a pretext to suppress Texas-based speech about climate and energy policies.” ExxonMobil asked the Texas Supreme Court to “confirm that longstanding precedent of this Court and the U.S. Supreme Court supports exercising jurisdiction over the potential defendants for their improper effort to suppress speech in Texas.” -
City of San Francisco v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/18/2020 Opinion Download Concurring opinion issued. 06/18/2020 Opinion Download Trial court order reversed and Exxon's petition denied. Texas Appellate Court Found Insufficient Contacts to Allow Exxon to Pursue Presuit Discovery Against California Cities and Counties. Reversing a trial court, the Texas Court of Appeals dismissed Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) petition seeking presuit discovery against California cities and counties that had filed tort-based lawsuits in California courts seeking to hold Exxon and other fossil fuel companies liable for the impacts of climate change. Exxon—which also sought discovery from government officials and an outside attorney who represented two of the cities—contended that the counties’ and cities’ allegations in their lawsuits regarding climate change risks contradicted their bond-offering disclosures and that discovery would allow Exxon to determine whether the California suits were “baseless and brought in bad faith as a pretext to suppress the Texas energy sector’s Texas-based speech and associational activities regarding climate change and to gain access to documents that Exxon keeps in Texas.” The appellate court found that the potential defendants lacked “the requisite minimum contacts with Texas to be subject to personal jurisdiction here.” The appellate court stated that “even though the California suits and some of the Potential Defendants' public comments target Exxon's climate-change speech, these out-of-state actions were directed at Exxon, not Texas. Without more, the mere fact that the Potential Defendants directed these statements at Texas-based Exxon and that Exxon might suffer injury here does not establish personal jurisdiction.” In addition, the appellate court said the filing of lawsuits that could yield production of documents located in Texas was not sufficient to subject the potential defendants to personal jurisdiction in Texas. The appellate court further concluded that a Texas court could not order depositions from prospective witnesses when it did not have personal jurisdiction over the potential defendants. In the opinion’s closing paragraphs, the appellate court said it would “confess to an impulse to safeguard an industry that is vital to Texas’s economic well-being,” but that “our reading of the law simply does not permit us to agree” that the potential defendants had the requisite contacts for jurisdiction. In a similar vein, the chief justice of the court wrote a short concurring opinion urging the Texas Supreme Court “to reconsider the minimum-contacts standard that binds us.” 01/23/2020 Order Download Appellants' motion to file a response to Exxon's post-submission brief granted. 01/22/2020 Response Download Motion for leave to file response to Exxon's post-submission brief and response to the brief filed. 01/10/2020 Brief Download Post-submission brief regarding recent decision by the New York Supreme Court filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation. 01/10/2020 Order Download Exxon's motion to file a post-submission brief granted. 01/07/2020 Motion Download Motion filed by appellee Exxon Mobil Corporation for leave to file post-submission brief regarding recent decision by the New York Supreme Court. 12/17/2018 Reply Download Consolidated reply brief filed by appellants. 09/26/2018 Brief Download Brief filed by appellee Exxon Mobil Corporation. 07/06/2018 Brief Download Brief filed by City of San Francisco et al. California Local Governments and Officials Filed Briefs in Appeals of Texas Court’s Order Finding Them Subject to Its Jurisdiction. In July, California cities and counties, local officials, and an outside attorney filed briefs in their appeals of a Texas state court determination that it had personal jurisdiction over the appellants in a proceeding initiated by Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) to pursue pre-suit discovery. The appellants are plaintiffs (and officials and attorneys for the plaintiffs) in lawsuits seeking to hold Exxon and other fossil fuel companies liable for the companies’ contributions to climate change. Exxon sought to conduct depositions and obtain documents relating to potential claims of abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and violations of Exxon’s constitutional rights in connection with “abusive law enforcement tactics and litigation in California” that were “attempting to stifle ExxonMobil’s exercise, in Texas, of its First Amendment right to participate in the national dialogue about climate change and climate policy.” The appellants argued that there were no acts or contacts that could form a basis for a Texas state court to have personal jurisdiction over the appellants in its potential lawsuit. 07/06/2018 Brief Download Brief filed by City of Oakland et al. 07/06/2018 Brief Download Brief filed by County of San Mateo et al. 04/09/2018 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by City of Oakland et al. 04/09/2018 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by County of San Mateo et al. 04/09/2018 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by City of San Francisco et al. -
In re Exxon Mobil Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/24/2018 Not Available Download Findings of fact and conclusions of law issued in support of denial of special appearances. A Texas court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in which the court concluded that it would have personal jurisdiction over potential defendants in a lawsuit contemplated by Exxon Mobil Corporation against parties who participated in planning California local governments' lawsuits against fossil fuel companies. The court concluded that Exxon's potential claims of First Amendment violations, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy would arise from the potential defendants' contact with Texas and that exercising jurisdiction over the defendants "would comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." In addition, the court said Texas had "a substantial state interest in adjudicating claims concerning constitutional torts committed in Texas against residents." 03/27/2018 Request Request filed by Exxon for findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the court's denial of special appearances. 03/14/2018 Order Special appearances denied. 03/01/2018 Objection Download Objections and response to respondents' special appearances filed by ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil Argued That California Municipalities and Officials Would Be Subject to Texas Court’s Personal Jurisdiction. Exxon Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil) argued to a Texas state court that it should deny special appearances filed by potential defendants and witnesses in ExxonMobil’s possible lawsuit against California cities and counties that have filed lawsuits seeking to hold ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies liable for climate change damages. The potential defendants in ExxonMobil’s threatened lawsuit also include officials and lawyers for the California cities and counties. ExxonMobil argued to the court that if it brought its lawsuit alleging constitutional violations, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy, the defendants would be subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction because they had committed intentional torts in Texas. 01/08/2018 Petition Download Petition for pre-suit depositions filed. Exxon Asked Texas State Court to Allow Depositions of Municipal Officials and Lawyers Involved in Climate Change Tort Lawsuits Against Fossil Fuel Companies. On January 8, 2018, Exxon Mobil Corporation filed a petition in Texas state court requesting an order allowing the company to conduct pre-suit depositions and obtain documents pertaining to potential claims of abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and violations of Exxon’s constitutional rights in connection with “abusive law enforcement tactics and litigation in California” that were “attempting to stifle ExxonMobil’s exercise, in Texas, of its First Amendment right to participate in the national dialogue about climate change and climate policy.” Exxon cited the tort lawsuits filed by California municipalities, as well as investigations being conducted by state attorneys general. The information sought by Exxon included the municipalities’ communications with third parties “about the real purposes of the litigation” or risk disclosures contained in their municipal bonds. Exxon alleged that the “stark and irreconcilable conflict” between the municipalities’ allegations in the lawsuits and their disclosures in bond offerings indicated that the lawsuits were brought “not because of a bona fide belief in any tortious conduct by the defendants or actual damage to their jurisdictions, but instead to coerce ExxonMobil and others operating in the Texas energy sector to adopt policies aligned with those favored by local politicians in California.” Exxon also alleged that the municipalities’ allegations were at odds with California’s actions seeking to recoup the fair market value of fossil fuels extracted on state public lands and that the municipalities did not acknowledge their own contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, Exxon asserted that the respondents named in the petition—which included municipal officials and attorneys—had made “repeated efforts … to conceal and possibly destroy evidence potentially relevant” to Exxon’s claims.