AUSTIN – The California municipalities bringing climate change lawsuits against oil companies seek to benefit from suppressing Texas free speech and attacking Texas policy, according to ExxonMobil’s recently filed brief.
Exxon’s legal fight to pull back the curtain on the authors of climate change litigation is currently in the hands of the Texas Supreme Court and has drawn support from many notable individuals and groups, including Gov. Greg Abbott, who filed a brief back in May arguing that no Texan voted for the California officials orchestrating climate change lawfare.
Currently, the high court is considering Exxon’s petition of review, which asserts California municipalities and a Massachusetts lawyer are attempting to chill speech and commandeer public policy, subjecting them to personal jurisdiction in Texas courts.
Justices must decide if Exxon has the authority to investigate those orchestrating the litigation.
The oil giant claims 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.”
On Sept. 10, Exxon filed a brief on the merits, arguing that the group of “well-funded climate change activists” waging lawfare “threaten the production of substantial resources within Texas and seek to obstruct state policy on the exploration, production, and marketing of oil and gas.”
“The Court should confirm that a non-resident who uses tort suits as pretext for suppressing Texas speech and policy is subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas,” the brief states.
“The potential defendants executed a litigation plan methodically designed to achieve their policy objectives: they intentionally targeted Texas with seven lawsuits against ExxonMobil and seventeen other Texas-based energy companies to suppress the speech of the Texas energy sector.”
Case background
The case currently before the high court stems from a petition Exxon filed 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, 2020, 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).
Pawa is represented by Fort Worth attorney Steven Hayes.
The California parties are represented by the law firms of McKool Smith and Altshuler Berzon.
Supreme Court case No. 20-0558