After California municipalities filed suit against ExxonMobil for contributing to the alleged effects of climate change, Exxon petitioned Tarrant County District Court for pre-suit discovery for a potential lawsuit of its own against the plaintiffs. The municipalities unsuccessfully challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction.
Exxon claims the California municipalities are conspiring to make energy companies pay for global warming damages, such as projected flooding disasters that the municipalities failed to mention in bond offerings.
The municipalities appealed the lower court ruling. During the appeal, Exxon cited a recent ruling by the New York Supreme Court in another suit against the oil giant in which the judge opined that “politically motivated state politicians targeted ExxonMobil in a pretextual exercise of state power,” just as the California municipalities have done.
Ultimately, the Second Appellate District overruled the lower Texas court last week, concluding that Texas courts do not have jurisdiction over the out-of-state actors.
“Because the potential defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within Texas, they lack sufficient contacts for a Texas court to exercise specific jurisdiction,” the appellate court ruled.
The court lamented having to rule as it did and chastised the California municipalities for pursuing litigation rather than regulatory change.
“Lawfare is an ugly tool by which to seek the environmental policy changes the California Parties desire, enlisting the judiciary to do the work that the other two branches of government cannot or will not do to persuade their constituents that anthropogenic climate change (a) has been conclusively proved and (b) must be remedied by crippling the energy industry,” the higher court conceded.
“In the end, though, our reading of the law simply does not permit us to agree with Exxon’s contention that the Potential Defendants have the purposeful contacts with our state needed to satisfy the minimum-contacts standard that binds us.”
The U.S. Supreme Court may have to weigh in on this case, and others like it, and strike a long-overdue blow against the abusive practices of lawfare warriors.