Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Healey, Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-469-K
Citation | 215 F.Supp.3d 520 |
Decision Date | 13 October 2016 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-469-K |
Parties | EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Maura Tracy HEALEY, Attorney General of Massachusetts in her official capacity, Defendant. |
Court | United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Texas |
Garrison LLP, New York, NY, Justin Anderson, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC, Nina Cortell, Haynes & Boone LLP, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.
Douglas A. Cawley, Richard Alan Kamprath, Mckool Smith, Dallas, TX, Christophe Courchesne, I Andrew Goldberg, Melissa Ann Hoffer, Peter Charles Mulcahy, Richard Alan Johnston, Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, Boston, MA, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Exxon Mobil Corporation's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 8) and Defendant Attorney General Healey's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 41) are under advisement with the Court. Plaintiff Exxon Mobil Corporation ("Exxon") moves to enjoin Defendant Attorney General Maura Tracy Healey of Massachusetts from enforcing the civil investigative demand ("CID") the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued to Exxon on April 19, 2016. The Attorney General claims that the CID was issued to investigate whether Exxon committed consumer and securities fraud on the citizens of Massachusetts. Exxon contends that the Attorney General issued the CID in an attempt to satisfy a political agenda. Compliance with the CID would require Exxon to disclose documents dating back to January 1, 1976 that relate to what Exxon possibly knew about climate change and global warming.
Additionally, Defendant Attorney General Healey moves to dismiss Plaintiff Exxon's Complaint for (1) lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) under Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), (3) lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) because the dispute is not yet ripe, and (4) improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3). Before reaching a decision on either Plaintiff Exxon's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction or Defendant Attorney General Healey's Motion to Dismiss, the Court ORDERS that jurisdictional discovery be conducted.
The Court has an obligation to examine its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas , 493 U.S. 215, 230–31, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990) ; see also Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co. , 526 U.S. 574, 583, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999) (). A district court has broad discretion in all discovery matters, including whether to permit jurisdictional discovery. Wyatt v. Kaplan , 686 F.2d 276, 283 (5th Cir. 1982). "When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, a court has authority to resolve factual disputes, and may devise a method to ... make a determination as to jurisdiction, ‘which may include considering affidavits, allowing further discovery, hearing oral testimony, or conducting an evidentiary hearing.’ " Hunter v. Branch Banking and Trust Co. , No. 3:12–cv–2437–D, 2012 WL 5845426, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2012) (quoting Moran v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , 27 F.3d 169, 172 (5th Cir. 1994) ). If subject matter jurisdiction turns on a disputed fact, parties can conduct jurisdictional discovery so that they can present their arguments and evidence to the Court. In re Eckstein Marine Serv. L.L.C. , 672 F.3d 310, 319 (5th Cir. 2012).
One of the reasons Defendant Attorney General Healey moves to dismiss Plaintiff Exxon's Complaint is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The Court particularly wants to conduct jurisdictional discovery to determine if Plaintiff Exxon's Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because of the application of Younger abstention. See Younger , 401 U.S. at 43–45, 91 S.Ct. 746 ; Health Net, Inc. v. Wooley , 534 F.3d 487, 494 (5th Cir. 2008) ( ). The Supreme Court in Younger "espouse[d] a strong federal policy against federal court interference with pending state judicial proceedings." Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n , 457 U.S. 423, 431, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982).
Jurisdictional discovery needs to be conducted to consider whether the current proceeding filed by Exxon in Massachusetts Superior Court challenging the CID warrants Younger abstention by this Court. If Defendant Attorney General Healey issued the CID in bad faith, then her bad faith precludes Younger abstention. See Bishop v. State Bar of Texas , 736 F.2d 292, 294 (5th Cir. 1984). Attorney General Healey's actions leading up to the issuance of the CID causes the Court concern and presents the Court with the question of whether Attorney General Healey issued the CID with bias or prejudgment about what the investigation of Exxon would discover.
Prior to the issuance of the CID, Attorney General Healey and several other attorneys general participated in the AGs United for Clean Power Press Conference on March 29, 2016 in New York, New York. Notably, the morning before the AGs United for Clean Power Press Conference, Attorney General Healey and other attorneys general allegedly attended a closed door meeting. At the meeting, Attorney General Healey and the other attorneys general listened to presentations from a global warming activist and an environmental attorney that has a well-known global warming litigation practice. Both presenters allegedly discussed the importance of taking action in the fight against climate change and engaging in global warming litigation.
One of the presenters, Matthew Pawa of Pawa Law Group, P.C., has allegedly previously sued Exxon for being a cause of global warming. After the closed door...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
...(2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2018); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Healey, Civ. A. No. 16-CV-469-K (N.D. Tex. March 29, 2017); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Healey, 215 F. Supp. 3d 520 (N.D. Tex. 2016). When these efforts to quash the subpoenas failed in New York and Massachusetts,2 ExxonMobil fought through a bench tri......
- Rogers v. Averitt Express, Inc.
-
Time for Plan(et) B? Why Securities Litigation Is a Misguided Attempt at Regulating Climate Change
...Utah, and Nevada as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 1–2, 9, Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Healey, 215 F. Supp. 3d 520 (N.D. Tex. 2016) (No. 4:16-CV-00469-K), 2016 WL 7433124. 370 THE GEORGETOWN ENVTL. LAW REVIEW [Vol. 33:333 pressures as elected officials......