Massachusetts v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Massachusetts v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Opinion

 [*34]  MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

I. INTRODUCTION

The parties offer the Court sharply diverging theories of this case. [**2]  As Exxon Mobil Corporation tells it, Massachusetts has brought this suit to hold a single oil company liable for global climate change. To the Commonwealth, this case is about seismic corporate fraud perpetrated on millions of consumers and investors. Yet as it reaches this Court on a motion to remand, this case is about the well-pleaded complaint rule -- nothing more and nothing less. That rule, in turn, implicates the fault lines dividing the federal and state judiciaries.

After oral argument and careful consideration, the Court remanded the case to state court for want of federal jurisdiction. This memorandum fully explicates the Court's reasoning. In brief, the Commonwealth's well-pleaded complaint pleads only state law claims, which are not completely preempted by federal law and do not harbor an embedded federal question. Additionally, contrary to the defendant's assertions, the statutory grants of federal jurisdiction for cases involving federal officers or for class actions do not apply here.

A. Procedural Background

This case has a complex pre-history dating back to April 19, 2016, when Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey ("the Attorney General") issued a Civil Investigative [**3]  Demand ("CID") to Exxon Mobil Corporation ("ExxonMobil") for potentially defrauding ExxonMobil's consumers and investors, requesting ExxonMobil's internal documents since 1976 relating to carbon dioxide emissions. See Office of the Attorney General, Civil Investigative Demand No. 2016-EPD-36 (Apr. 19, 2016), https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/10/op/ma-exxon-cid-.pdf. This investigation was presaged with fanfare by the "AG's United for Clean Power Press Conference" held on March 29, 2016, in which the Attorney General (joined by several counterparts from other states and former Vice President Al Gore) announced a band of twenty attorneys general -- dubbed "the Green 20" -- and noted "the troubling disconnect between what Exxon knew [about climate change] . . . and what the company and industry chose to share with investors and with the American public." Notice of Removal ("Notice"), Ex. 2, AGs United for Clean Power Press Conference 1-2, 12-13, ECF No. 1-2.¹

Hardly a potted plant, ExxonMobil swiftly countered the CID with lawsuits in state and federal court. See In re Civil Investigative Demand No. 2016-EPD-36, No. SUCV20161888F, 34 Mass. L. Rptr. 104, 2017 WL 627305, at *1 (Mass. Super. Ct. Jan. 11, 2017) (Brieger,  [*35]  J.), aff'd sub nom. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Attorney General, 479 Mass. 312, 94 N.E.3d 786 (2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 794, 202 L. Ed. 2d 570 (2019); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Schneiderman, 316 F. Supp. 3d 679, 686 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ("Running roughshod over the adage that the best defense is a good offense, [ExxonMobil] has sued the Attorneys General of Massachusetts and New York . . . each of whom has an open investigation of Exxon."), appeal docketed sub nom. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Healey, No. 18-1170 (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 trial in New York and won a favorable decision. People of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 65 Misc. 3d 1233[A], 119 N.Y.S.3d 829, 2019 NY Slip Op 51990[U], 65 Misc. 3d 1233[A] (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Dec. 10, 2019).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.