FORT WORTH – Wanting to expose those behind climate change ‘lawfare’, two notable Texas groups recently filed amicus briefs in support of ExxonMobil in an appeal currently before the state’s highest court.
In June, a conflicted appellate court ruled it does not have jurisdiction over California cities and counties pursuing climate change lawsuits against the energy sector.
The case is now currently before the Texas Supreme Court. Justices will ultimately decide if ExxonMobil has the authority to investigate those who allegedly orchestrated the litigation on its home turf.
Exxon is not alone in the fight.
On Oct. 6, the Texas Civil Justice League filed a brief stating the case “mounts a wholesale attack on the most important sector of the Texas economy and poses a serious economic threat to this state and to every citizen who calls Texas home.”
TCJL maintains that even though the lower appellate court didn’t side with Exxon, justices still recognized that climate change litigation “constitutes a shameless exercise of ‘lawfare’ and a naked attempt not only to silence the free speech of the oil and gas industry, many of which have headquarters in Texas, but to also create economic chaos in the state that leads the nation, and much of the world, in energy production.”
More recently, the Texas Oil & Gas Association filed a brief on Nov. 10, stating that the group has an interest in the case because its members may become “the victims of the same type of targeting to which ExxonMobil has been subjected.”
“Suffice it to say, when a defendant uses ‘lawfare’ to extinguish the plaintiff’s primary conduct in the forum state (such as the exercise of free speech and associational rights), there is an activity and occurrence in the forum from which the plaintiff’s claim arises and that justifies the exercise of specific jurisdiction under existing Supreme Court precedent,” the brief states.
“Here, by targeting conduct in order to stop it from happening in Texas, the potential defendants have availed themselves of the privilege of acting within this State and made themselves subject to Texas jurisdiction.”
Exxon’s petition
Court records show Exxon filed a petition for review with the high court On Oct. 2, arguing that the “potential defendants use tort suits to impose their preferred climate and energy policies on Texas.”
Exxon asserts Matt Pawa, a Hagens Berman attorney who is pursuing many of the cases on a contingency fee, recruits state attorneys general and applies the “Big Tobacco playbook” to sue in order “to suppress the speech of Texas-based energy companies.”
Exxon believes Pawa promoted his playbook to California municipalities, urging them to become potential plaintiffs in tort litigation against energy companies.
The oil giant seeks to depose Pawa and the California municipalities to lay the groundwork for a counter-lawsuit.
Case background
Last January, Exxon filed a petition in Tarrant County District Court in response to the climate change litigation, seeking pre-suit discovery for a potential lawsuit against the California municipalities and officials and Pawa.
Exxon’s case against the California municipalities ended up in the Second Court of Appeals after a Texas judge found the cities and counties were hypocritical in suing Exxon.
The municipalities had claimed doom to their infrastructures will be caused by rising sea levels, but when issuing bond offers to potential investors, they had neglected to mention this alleged, near-certain destruction.
Exxon maintains the California climate change suits were crafted using a “playbook” to alter Big Oil’s viewpoint on climate change and pressure the oil industry through litigation to change to renewable energy.
The oil giant argued its suit against them belongs in Texas because they have purposeful contacts within the state.
However, on June 18 the Second Court found that was not enough to keep the litigation here, despite feeling an impulse to protect the energy sector.
Exxon is represented in part by attorneys Patrick Conlon, Ralph Duggins (Cantey Hanger) and Nina Cortell (Haynes and Boone).
Case No. 20-0558