Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION,
No. 17-CV-2301 (VEC) (SN)
Plaintiff,
ECF Case
-againstERIC TRADD SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney
General of New York, in his official capacity,
and MAURA TRACY HEALEY, Attorney
General of Massachusetts, in her official
capacity,
Defendants.

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL HEALEY’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS

MAURA HEALEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 727-2200

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 2 of 24

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

II.

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1

III.

STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS .................................................................................. 3

IV.

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 6
A. Legal Standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. ............................................... 6
B. Exxon’s Principal Claims Must Be Dismissed Because They Fail to Meet the
Minimum Pleading Standards of Rule 8(a)(2). ............................................................. 7
1. Exxon’s Allegations Are Inadequate Under Iqbal. ..................................................7
2. Exxon’s Arguments in Prior Briefing Further Underscore that Its
Amended Complaint Fails to Plead Sufficient Facts to State Plausible
Claims. ...................................................................................................................12
C. Exxon’s Other Claims Are Facially Deficient as a Matter of Law and Must Be
Dismissed. ................................................................................................................... 17

V.

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 19

ii

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 3 of 24

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Allco Fin. Ltd. v. Klee, 861 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 17
Allen v. Cuomo, 100 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 1996) ............................................................................... 19
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................. passim
Att’y Gen. v. Bodimetric Profiles, 533 N.E.2d 1364 (Mass. 1989) .............................................. 10
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................. passim
Berisic v. Winckelman, No. 03 Civ. 1810 (NRB), 2003 WL 21714930 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2003)
.................................................................................................................................................. 19
Biro v. Conde Nast, 807 F.3d 541 (2d Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 6
Empire State Beer Distrib. Ass’n ex rel. Alcoholic Beverage Wholesalers v. Patterson, No. 09
CIV. 10339 DAB, 2010 WL 749828 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2010) ................................................ 17
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) ........................................................................................... 18
Fin. & Trading, Ltd. v. Rhodia, S.A., No. 04 Civ. 6083 (MBM), 2004 WL 2754862 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 30, 2004) .......................................................................................................................... 18
Fisk v. Letterman, 401 F. Supp. 2d 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ............................................................ 11
Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapo & Jepsen Ins. Serv, Inc., 870 N.E.2d 1105 (Mass. 2007) ................... 15
Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) .................................................................................... 6
In re Civil Investigative Demand No. 2016-EPD-36, No. SUCV20161888F, 2017 WL 627305
(Mass. Super. Jan. 11, 2017) ............................................................................................... 10, 13
In re Standard & Poor’s Rating Agency Litig., 23 F. Supp. 3d 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ................. 18
Kaminsky v. Schriro, No. 3:14-cv-01885 (MPS), 2016 WL 3460303 (D. Conn. June 21, 2016) .. 8
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) ......................................... 18, 19
Schaeffler v. United States, 806 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2015) ............................................................... 15
SEC v. McGoff, 647 F.2d 185 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ...................................................................... 11, 17
Spear v. Town of West Hartford, 954 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1992) ........................................................ 8
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 (1983)............................... 11

iii

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 4 of 24

Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647 (1963)................................................................................... 19
Williams v. Town of Greenburgh, 535 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2008) ....................................................... 8
Zemsky v. City of New York, 821 F.2d 148 (2d Cir. 1987) ........................................................... 11
Statutes
15 U.S.C. § 77r ............................................................................................................................. 18
42 U.S.C. § 1985 ....................................................................................................................... 4, 11
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A ............................................................................................... 1, 3, 10, 14
Mass. St. 2008, ch. 298 ................................................................................................................. 14
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ................................................................................................................ 3, 6, 7, 13
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ................................................................................................................... passim

iv

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 5 of 24

I. INTRODUCTION
At the Court’s direction, Attorney General Healey herein provides supplemental briefing
under Second Circuit law in support of her Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 216) Exxon
Mobil Corporation’s (“Exxon”) First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 100, with exhibits in Doc.
No. 101;“Amended Complaint” or “FAC”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”)
12(b)(6).1 In addition to the other grounds detailed in Attorney General Healey’s prior briefs, this
Court must dismiss Exxon’s Amended Complaint because Exxon failed to allege a plausible
entitlement to relief for any of its claims. Instead, Exxon’s Amended Complaint rests only on its
own speculative conspiratorial theories about the Attorney General’s reasons for investigating
the company for investor and consumer fraud, and otherwise fails to state any cognizable claim
for relief.2
II. BACKGROUND
In response to Attorney General Healey’s civil investigative demand (“CID”) pursuant to
Massachusetts General Law chapter 93A (“Chapter 93A”), for information about whether Exxon
misled Massachusetts investors and consumers, Exxon went on the offensive, resisting any

1

Attorney General Healey filed four briefs in support of dismissal in the Northern District of
Texas prior to transfer of the case to this Court. Doc Nos. 42, 65, 125, 169. At the initial status
conference after transfer, this Court directed the Attorneys General to update their briefs to focus
on personal jurisdiction, ripeness, Colorado River abstention, and collateral estoppel and res
judicata. Doc. No. 198. At the November 30, 2017, hearing on the motions to dismiss, the Court
further directed the Attorneys General to update their briefing on dismissal pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) to reference Second Circuit law.
2
For the reasons set forth in Attorney General Healey’s prior briefs to this Court, Exxon’s claims
are also subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) in light of the preclusive effect of the January
11, 2017, order of the Massachusetts Superior Court, which denied Exxon’s petition to set aside
or modify Attorney General Healey’s Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) and granted Attorney
General Healey’s motion to compel the company’s compliance with the CID. See Doc. No. 217
at 8-14; Doc. No. 233 at 2-6. Attorney General Healey respectfully reserves grounds for
dismissal not presented herein or in her prior briefs to this Court.
1

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 6 of 24

production of documents, despite its ongoing compliance with a substantially similar subpoena
by New York Attorney General Schneiderman. Exxon pursued two aggressive, vexatious legal
actions against Attorney General Healey: one recently argued before the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court,3 and the one now pending before this Court. Exxon’s strategy seeks to turn the
tables by investigating the investigators, claiming that Attorney General Healey’s statutorilyauthorized investor and consumer fraud investigation is pretextual. Exxon has thus attempted to
shift the focus away from its own conduct—whether Exxon, over the course of nearly fortyyears, misled Massachusetts investors and consumers about the role of Exxon products in
causing climate change, and the impacts of climate change on Exxon’s business—to its
chimerical theory that Attorney General Healey issued the CID to silence and intimidate Exxon.
The fatal flaw with Exxon’s theory is that Exxon has failed to identify any facts that
would make out a plausible legal claim against Attorney General Healey—despite having had
two chances, in its original complaint and its amended complaint, to do so. And, in response to
repeated requests from this Court at oral argument on November 30, 2017, for Exxon to point to
facts that show Attorney General Healey is relying on her CID authority to discriminate against
Exxon, Exxon failed to identify a single plausible allegation in support of its theory. 4 Indeed, in

3

In the Massachusetts litigation, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument
on December 5, 2017, in Exxon’s appeal of the Massachusetts Superior Court decision, inter
alia, denying Exxon’s motion to set aside Attorney General Healey’s CID. The Supreme Judicial
Court is expected to issue a ruling within approximately four months. The Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court online docket for the case is available at the following address:
http://ma-appellatecourts.org/display_docket.php?src=party&dno=SJC-12376.
4
See, e.g., Transcript of Oral Argument (Doc. No. 244, citations to expedited copy; “Tr.”), at 27,
lines 2-3 (“You have to have plausible allegations. That is where, I think, you may be
foundering.”); id. at 32, lines 4-10 (“Point me to what you want me to focus on, that they are
using their power of subpoena to discriminate against you . . . .”); id. at 35, lines 17-22 (“Again,
please give me what you view as your best facts, facts that passed Iqbal to show that they are not
truly engaged in a legitimate fraud investigation . . . .”).
2

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 7 of 24

response to the Court’s direct inquiries, Exxon contended at one point that “one of the strongest
pieces of evidence that there is something out of the ordinary here and that there is an improper
purpose being pursued by the attorneys general” is the fact that twelve state attorneys general
filed an amicus brief on Exxon’s behalf in the Texas federal district court. Tr. at 32, lines 15-19.5
That contention, like Exxon’s other wild leaps of logic, simply is not credible.
As this Court observed, Exxon does not “have the right to lie in [its] securities filings.
That’s what [the attorneys general] are investigating. If they are wrong, then they don’t have a
case. If they are right, then Exxon should be held to account.” Tr. at 34, lines 16-19. Chapter 93A
prohibits Exxon from misleading Massachusetts investors and consumers, and the Massachusetts
Superior Court has already determined that Attorney General Healey has undertaken her
investigation in good faith. Exxon has failed to state a plausible or cognizable claim for relief,
and its Amended Complaint must be dismissed.
III. STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS
Exxon filed its initial complaint in this action in the Northern District of Texas on June
15, 2016. Attorney General Healey first moved for dismissal on August 8, 2016, focusing on the
threshold grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of Texas, Younger
abstention, lack of ripeness, and improper venue. Doc. Nos. 41 & 42. In briefing on that motion,
Attorney General Healey made clear that Exxon’s allegations also failed to state a claim for
relief under Rule 8(a)(2). Doc. No. 65 at 1-3.
Exxon’s Amended Complaint, filed in the Northern District of Texas on November 10,
2016, alleges that Attorney General Healey and New York Attorney General Schneiderman

5

Of course, Exxon cannot rely on an amicus brief to supply the necessary predicate for its
claims. It is worth noting that twenty attorneys general submitted an amicus brief in support of
Attorney General Healey in Texas. Doc. No. 54.
3

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 8 of 24

“have joined together with each other as well as others known and unknown to conduct improper
and politically motivated investigations of ExxonMobil in a coordinated effort to silence and
intimidate one side of the public policy debate on how to address climate change.” FAC at 1.
Following an extended and fanciful account of Exxon’s conspiracy theory, the Amended
Complaint contains seven purported “causes of action”:
1.

“conspiracy” under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and Texas common law, FAC ¶¶ 105-108;

2.

“violation of ExxonMobil’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights” and a
cognate provision of the Texas Constitution, id. ¶¶ 109-111;

3.

“violation of ExxonMobil’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights” and a
cognate provision of the Texas Constitution, id. ¶¶ 112-114;

4.

“violation of ExxonMobil’s Fourteenth Amendment rights” to “due process,” and
a cognate provision of the Texas Constitution, id. ¶¶ 115-117;

5.

“violation of ExxonMobil’s rights under the Dormant Commerce Clause,” id.
¶¶ 118-121;

6.

“federal preemption,” id. ¶¶ 122-126; and

7.

“abuse of process under common law,” id. ¶¶ 127-128.

As to Attorney General Healey, Exxon’s prayer for relief focuses solely on the CID,
seeking a declaratory judgment that the CID violates Exxon’s federal and state constitutional
rights and “common law”; “[a] preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of
. . . the CID”; “[s]uch other injunctive relief to which Plaintiff is entitled”; and “[a]ll costs of
court together with any and all such other and further relief as this Court may deem proper.” Id.
at 47.

4

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 9 of 24

On November 28, 2016, Attorney General Healey moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Northern District of Texas on multiple grounds, including that the Amended
Complaint failed to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6). See Doc. No. 125 at 22-25 &
Doc. No. 169 at 8-10.
Attorney General Healey incorporates by reference the Statement of Facts in her earlier
brief to this Court in support of dismissal, as updated by her letter to the Court dated August 1,
2017, and statements at the November 30, 2017, hearing on pending motions to dismiss. See
Doc. No. 217 at 2-7; Doc. No. 236.
One development subsequent to that hearing is noteworthy. On December 11, 2017,
Exxon filed a Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) stating that
Exxon’s board of directors had “reconsidered” a shareholder proposal requesting analysis of
“impacts of climate change policies” on Exxon’s business, which was spearheaded by the New
York State Common Retirement Fund and earned the support of a majority of shareholders at
Exxon’s 2017 shareholder meeting in May. The board disclosed that it “has decided to further
enhance the Company’s disclosures consistent with the . . . proposal and will seek to issue these
disclosures in the near future,” including “energy demand sensitivities, implications of two
degree Celsius scenarios, and positioning for a lower-carbon future.”6 This filing makes clear
that, at a minimum, Exxon’s prior disclosures to investors, including Massachusetts investors,
may not have adequately accounted for the effect of climate change on its business and assets.

6

See Exxon Form 8-K (Dec. 11, 2017), available at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/
34088/000003408817000057/r8k121117.htm; see also Letter to Office of the New York State
Comptroller from Exxon Mobil Corporation, (Dec. 11, 2017), available at
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/dec17/exxon-agreement-letter.pdf (“The risk of climate
change is an important matter and one that requires thoughtful and objective engagement across
society.”).
5

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 10 of 24

IV. ARGUMENT
THE COURT MUST DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT BECAUSE NONE OF
EXXON’S CLAIMS IS PLAUSIBLE OR LEGALLY COGNIZABLE
A.

LEGAL STANDARD FOR A RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS.

When presented with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) the Court considers “the
legal sufficiency of the complaint, taking its factual allegations to be true and drawing all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 2009)
(emphasis added). Under Rule 8(a)(2) and governing Supreme Court and Second Circuit
decisions, this review requires the Court to apply a “‘plausibility standard,’ which is guided by
‘[t]wo working principles.’” Id. at 72 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
“First, although ‘a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint,’ that
‘tenet’ ‘is inapplicable to legal conclusions,’ and ‘[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.’” Harris, 572 F.3d at 72
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). “Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief
survives a motion to dismiss,” and “[d]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim
for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense.” Harris, 572 F.3d at 72 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678);
see also Biro v. Conde Nast, 807 F.3d 541, 544 (2d Cir. 2015) (“[a] claim is plausible ‘when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged’” (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678)).
For the reasons set forth below, Exxon’s Amended Complaint fails to state a plausible or
legally cognizable claim for relief and therefore is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

6

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 11 of 24

B.

EXXON’S PRINCIPAL CLAIMS MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE
THEY FAIL TO MEET THE MINIMUM PLEADING STANDARDS OF
RULE 8(a)(2).

The Court must dismiss the Amended Complaint’s principal claims because its bald,
baseless allegations that the Attorney General has, out of personal animus and in bad faith,
undertaken her investigation to chill Exxon’s political speech fail to meet the pleading standards
of Rule 8(a)(2); those allegations therefore cannot sustain Exxon’s causes of action for
(i) conspiracy under federal law and Texas common law; (ii) violation of Exxon’s First, Fourth,
and Fourteenth Amendment rights and cognate rights under the Texas Constitution; or (iii) abuse
of process under Texas common law (causes of action 1, 2-4, and 7, respectively). The rule is
that “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. As to Attorney General Healey, the Amended
Complaint consists almost wholly of such “conclusory statements,” which are insufficient to
withstand dismissal under Iqbal.
1.

EXXON’S ALLEGATIONS ARE INADEQUATE UNDER IQBAL.

Despite the length of the Amended Complaint’s “factual” narrative, Exxon effectively
offers no more than three facts as to Attorney General Healey: (1) the Attorney General
participated in a single event in New York that included a meeting and press conference where
she stated that climate change is a major challenge and that she would investigate Exxon, based
on reports and internal corporate documents7 indicating that Exxon knew more about climate

7

The reports, by the Los Angeles Times and Pulitzer Prize-winning news organization
InsideClimate News, included interviews with former Exxon employees and a review of Exxon’s
internal documents, many of which were posted online. The reports indicated that Exxon had
concluded internally, decades ago, that climate change was both real and potentially catastrophic
to life on this planet; that fossil fuel use contributed greatly to greenhouse gas emissions and
therefore climate change, thus putting Exxon’s core business at risk; and that Exxon chose to
shift its resources from climate research into a campaign to sway public opinion and prevent
government action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. See Doc. No. 43-3, at App. 430-45 (Los
7

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 12 of 24

change than it revealed to investors and consumers, FAC ¶¶ 2-3, 6, 27, 29, 32, 33, 37, 41; (2) the
Attorney General is a party to a routine common interest agreement with other state attorneys
general covering climate change-related litigation, id. ¶¶ 52-53; and (3) the CID was issued, id.
¶¶ 69-73.8
Pointing to no other facts, Exxon speculates in the Amended Complaint that Attorney
General Healey, “in an apparent effort to silence, intimidate, and deter those possessing a
particular viewpoint from participating in [a policy] debate” (id. ¶ 110 (emphasis added)):


“issued . . . the CID based on [her] disagreement with ExxonMobil regarding how the
United States should respond to climate change”—an “illegal purpose . . . not
substantially related to any compelling governmental interest” (id. ¶ 111);



thereby engaged in “an abusive fishing expedition . . . without any legitimate basis for
believing that ExxonMobil violated . . . Massachusetts law” (id. ¶ 114); and



undertook these actions because she is “biased against ExxonMobil” (id. ¶ 117) and has
“an ulterior motive . . . namely, an intent to prevent ExxonMobil from exercising its right
to express views with which [she] disagree[s]” (id. ¶ 128).9

Angeles Times report); and Doc. No. 43-3, at App. 446-65, Doc. No. 43-4, at App. 466-514, and
Doc. No. 43-5, at App 515-550 (InsideClimate News series).
8
See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 18, 107. An unofficial Exxon-prepared transcript of the Attorney General’s
remarks at the press conference can be found in Exhibit B of the Amended Complaint, App. 020021, the accuracy of which Attorney General Healey does not concede.
9
Exxon’s alleged “injuries” are likewise conclusory. See FAC ¶ 99 (“As a result of the improper
and politically motivated investigation[] launched by Attorney[] General . . . Healey,
ExxonMobil has suffered, now suffers, and will continue to suffer violations of its rights. . . . ”).
As the Court observed at the November 30, 2017, hearing, Tr. at 19, Exxon has not alleged that
its speech has been or will be chilled by the CID, which is fatal to its speech-related claims. See,
e.g., Spear v. Town of West Hartford, 954 F.2d 63, 67-68 (2d Cir. 1992); Kaminsky v. Schriro,
No. 3:14-cv-01885 (MPS), 2016 WL 3460303, *12 (D. Conn. June 21, 2016) (in 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action alleging First Amendment injury, “to state a claim, [the plaintiff] must either
allege facts showing that [the defendant] ‘silenced him’ . . . or some actual chilling effect
resulting from [the defendant’s] conduct that is neither ‘conclusory’ nor ‘speculative’” (emphasis
added) (quoting Williams v. Town of Greenburgh, 535 F.3d 71, 78 (2d Cir. 2008) and Spear, 954
F.2d at 67)). Indeed, Exxon’s claims of speech-related injury, i.e., that the CID will “silence,
intimidate, and deter” Exxon from participating in public debates on climate change, are belied
by the Amended Complaint itself, which states that “ExxonMobil intends—and has a
constitutional right—to continue to advance its perspective in the national discussions over how
8

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 13 of 24

These allegations are no more than “naked assertions, devoid of further factual
enhancement.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557
(2007)). Indeed, they are notably similar to the conclusory pleadings that the Supreme Court
found lacking in Iqbal. There, the plaintiff claimed that former Attorney General John Ashcroft
and former FBI Director Robert Mueller “‘each knew of, condoned, and willfully and
maliciously agreed to subject’ [him] to harsh conditions of confinement ‘as a matter of policy,
solely on account of [his] religion, race, and/or national origin and for no legitimate penological
interest,’” naming “Ashcroft as the ‘principal architect’ of the policy” and “Mueller as
‘instrumental in [its] adoption, promulgation, and implementation.’” Id. at 669. The Iqbal Court
disregarded the plaintiff’s conclusory statements as not entitled to a presumption of truth and
held that the plaintiff’s complaint lacked the “factual content to ‘nudg[e]’ his claim of purposeful
discrimination ‘across the line from conceivable to plausible’” as required to survive a motion to
dismiss. Id. at 683 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
Removing Exxon’s conclusory allegations and their repetition throughout the Complaint,
in the manner of the Iqbal Court, Exxon offers solely the three facts—the New York event, the
common interest agreement, and the CID—to support its claims that the Attorney General issued
the CID as part of an intentional, malicious conspiracy to violate Exxon’s constitutional rights
and state and federal law.
Those facts are insufficient. Indeed, as is clear from documents Exxon itself attached to
its Amended Complaint, Attorney General Healey has a clear, supported basis for believing her
office’s investigation of Exxon is warranted based on her office’s review of a significant number
of internal Exxon documents, made available by journalists in 2015, illustrating Exxon’s

best to respond to climate change.” Compare FAC at 1 & ¶ 110 with id. ¶ 98.
9

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 14 of 24

advanced scientific knowledge of climate change, the likely adverse impacts of efforts to address
climate change on Exxon’s business, and Exxon’s involvement in efforts to cause the public to
doubt the science of climate change. FAC, Ex. A, App. 004-06; Ex. J, App. 111-12; Ex. NN,
App. 357-61; Ex. RR, App. 439. Based on this review and her broad authority to issue CIDs,
Att’y Gen. v. Bodimetric Profiles, 533 N.E.2d 1364, 1367 (Mass. 1989), the Attorney General
satisfied the statutory requirement that she have a “belief” that the target of an investigation has
violated or is violating the statute. Indeed, the Massachusetts Superior Court—charged under
Massachusetts law with determining the validity of the CID, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A,
§ 6(7)—found that Attorney General Healey satisfied that statutory requirement in its January
2017 opinion, where it rejected Exxon’s claims that the CID should be set aside as arbitrary,
capricious, and in violation of its constitutional rights. See In re Civil Investigative Demand No.
2016-EPD-36, No. SUCV20161888F, 2017 WL 627305 (Mass. Super. Jan. 11, 2017) (Doc. No.
218-1). The reasonableness of that belief is further supported by the fact that other jurisdictions
are investigating the same conduct, FAC, Ex. QQ, App. 435, including Attorney General
Schneiderman and the FBI, as confirmed by the U.S. Attorney General, id., Ex. DD, App. 247249.10

As was disclosed in press reports, the SEC also is investigating Exxon’s accounting practices,
including the valuation of its reserves, in light of the future impacts of climate change regulation
on its business and other factors. See Doc. Nos. 95-4, 95-5. On October 28, 2016, Exxon
announced a thirty-eight percent drop in earnings as a result of low energy prices, and
“acknowledged that it faced what could be the biggest accounting revision of its reserves in its
history.” Doc. No. 95-4. In early 2017, Exxon did write down the value of its oil reserves,
debooking about 3.3 billion barrels of so-called “proved” reserves and appreciably shrinking the
value of one of the largest companies in the world. See Joe Carroll, Exxon Caves to Oil Crash
With Historic Global Reserves Cut, Bloomberg, Feb. 22, 2017, at https://www.bloomberg.com/
news/articles/2017-02-22/exxon-takes-historic-cut-to-oil-reserves-amid-crude-market-rout. And
now, in response to pressure from its own shareholders, Exxon has agreed to make additional
disclosures to investors regarding climate change risks, plainly calling into question the
adequacy of its past disclosures on climate change. See supra p. 5. The SEC investigation and
10

10

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 15 of 24

So here, as in Iqbal, “[a]s between [an] ‘obvious alternative explanation’” for the CID
“and the purposeful, invidious discrimination [Exxon] asks us to infer, discrimination” based on
Exxon’s views—as well as “an abusive fishing expedition,” biased prosecutors, abuse of process,
and a conspiracy to deprive Exxon of its rights—“is not a plausible conclusion.” 556 U.S. at 68;
see also SEC v. McGoff, 647 F.2d 185, 194 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (upholding subpoena against
“diffuse speculations” regarding its political motive).11
Moreover, as the Court recognized at the November 30, 2017, hearing, see Tr. at 18-19,
there is a telltale contradiction at the heart of Exxon’s account of viewpoint-based persecution.
Exxon asserts that Attorney General Healey has joined in an illegal conspiracy to violate
Exxon’s rights because she does not agree with Exxon’s views about climate change. Yet Exxon
also states that it now endorses climate science, the existence of climate change, and efforts to
combat it—consistent with Attorney General Healey’s position (and for that matter, federal and
Massachusetts law). See FAC at ¶ 98. In this context, Exxon’s narrative of constitutional harm is
not only implausible: it is nonsensical. Fisk v. Letterman, 401 F. Supp. 2d 362, 368 (S.D.N.Y.
2005) (courts are “not obliged to reconcile plaintiff's own pleadings that are contradicted by
other matters asserted or relied upon or incorporated by reference by a plaintiff in drafting the
complaint”).

Exxon’s own accounting decisions further confirm that E xxon’s narrative of unconstitutional
persecution is implausible.
11
Indeed, Exxon’s federal conspiracy claim is further deficient on its face, due to the fact that
Exxon did not even bother to cite a specific subsection of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 on which to rest its
claim, nor did it even attempt to track the elements of a cognizable claim under the statute.
Compare FAC ¶¶ 106-108, with, e.g., Zemsky v. City of New York, 821 F.2d 148, 151 (2d Cir.
1987) (“A plaintiff states a viable cause of action under Section 1985 . . . only by alleging a
deprivation of his rights on account of his membership in a particular class of individuals” (citing
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 834-35 (1983)).
11

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 16 of 24

Because Exxon’s allegations are incapable of sustaining its burden of providing “factual
content to ‘nudg[e]’ [its] claim[s] . . . ‘across the line from conceivable to plausible,’” Exxon’s
causes of action for conspiracy under federal law and Texas common law, violation of Exxon’s
First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and cognate rights under the Texas Constitution,
and abuse of process under Texas common law (causes of action 1, 2-4, and 7, respectively)
must be dismissed. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 683 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
2.

EXXON’S ARGUMENTS IN PRIOR BRIEFING FURTHER
UNDERSCORE THAT ITS AMENDED COMPLAINT FAILS TO
PLEAD SUFFICIENT FACTS TO STATE PLAUSIBLE CLAIMS.

Exxon already has had repeated opportunities to state plausible claims, but,
unsurprisingly, it has failed to do so, since the theory underlying its vexatious lawsuit against
Attorney General Healey is baseless. Given the chance to defend the sufficiency of its
allegations, Exxon failed entirely, resorting to reliance on yet more innuendo. For example, in its
opposition to Attorney General Healey’s first motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, Exxon
strained to compile a list of allegations that, it argued, render its “constitutional claims . . .
plausible on their face” to avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Doc. No. 165 at 23-25. Exxon
stated that “[t]hese are not legal conclusions; they are detailed factual allegations, supported by
the facts from the public record, which are entitled to a presumption of truth.” Id. at 25. Yet it is
clear that each self-described “fact” is either a legal conclusion, misrepresentation, or
unsupportable inference that Exxon disingenuously has labeled a “fact.” Taking each in turn:
First, Exxon presented as a “fact” in support of its claims that “the Attorney General
announced in a press conference her ‘moral obligation’ to fight climate change, plan to control
‘public perception’ on that issue, and finding that ExxonMobil is liable before even issuing the
CID[.]” Doc. No. 165 at 24. That Attorney General Healey believes that society has a “moral
obligation” to fight climate change—as do millions of people around the world—does not
12

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 17 of 24

plausibly support the inference that she is part of a political conspiracy to “silence” Exxon. Doc.
No. 165 at 24; see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (allegations must “plausibly suggest[] (not merely
[be] consistent with)” claim to meet Rule 8(a)(2) threshold (emphasis added)). Likewise,
Attorney General Healey did not “announce” at the press conference any “plan to control ‘public
perception,’” nor did she announce any “finding” that Exxon is “liable” for anything, as reading
Exxon’s own transcript of the press conference reveals. See FAC Ex. B, at App. 020 (transcript).
She announced that she was investigating the disconnect between what Exxon was telling the
public and what Exxon appeared to understand internally for decades, as reported in the popular
press based on Exxon’s internal documents, which are referenced in Exxon’s own attachments to
the Amended Complaint. Id.; see also supra pp. 9-10. Exxon’s “facts” are not facts at all—they
are Exxon spin.12
Second, Exxon presented as a “fact” in support of its claims that the Attorney General’s
supposed “plan to control ‘public perception’” was the “culmination of [climate activists]
collective efforts to enlist state law enforcement officers to join them in a quest to silence
political opponents, enact preferred policy responses to climate change, and obtain documents
for private law suits[.]” Doc. No. 165 at 24. Exxon’s bald assertion that third party activists
hoped that state attorneys general would “join them in a quest to silence political opponents”—
itself a wild, unsupported allegation—is not evidence that any such “quest” actually existed, let
alone that Attorney General Healey is somehow involved in or responsible for that quest. Doc.
No. 165 at 24; see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (“[A]n allegation of parallel conduct and a bare

12

See also In re Civil Investigative Demand No. 2016-EPD-36, 2017 WL 627305, at *6
(Attorney General’s remarks at press conference “do not evidence any actionable bias” and that
“[n]othing in the Attorney General’s comments at the press conference indicates to the court that
she is doing anything more than explaining reasons for her investigation to the Massachusetts
consumers she represents”).
13

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 18 of 24

assertion of conspiracy will not suffice.”).13 That these same activists allegedly hoped to “obtain
documents for private law suits”—again, without any facts offered in support—is also irrelevant,
since any documents Attorney General Healey obtains from Exxon under the CID are
confidential and cannot, as a matter of Massachusetts law, be disclosed to third parties. See
Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 93A, § 6(6) (“Any documentary material or other information produced by
any person pursuant to this section shall not, unless otherwise ordered by a court of the
commonwealth for good cause shown, be disclosed to any person other than the authorized agent
or representative of the attorney general, unless with the consent of the person producing the
same . . . .”).
Third, Exxon presents as a “fact” in support of its claims that “Attorney General Healey,
along with sixteen other attorneys general, signed a common interest agreement in order to
conceal the fact that the real goal of their investigations is to ‘limit[] climate change’ and
‘ensur[e] the dissemination of accurate information about climate change[.]’” Doc. No. 165 at
24. That a group of state attorneys general share “common legal interests” in “limiting climate
change” and “ensuring the dissemination of accurate information about climate change,” see
FAC Ex. V, at App. 195—legitimate common goals reflected in their respective state laws, see,
e.g., Global Warming Solutions Act, Mass. St. 2008, ch. 298, and goals with which Exxon now
claims to agree—does not plausibly support the allegation that those attorneys general are
engaged in a secret conspiracy to abuse Exxon’s constitutional rights. That the attorneys general
formalized those goals in a routine common interest agreement does not support that implausible

Likewise, that advocates allegedly made efforts to “enact their preferred policy preferences,”
thereby exercising their petition and free speech rights, does not support any inference of wrongdoing by them, let alone Attorney General Healey.
13

14

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 19 of 24

allegation, either.14 State attorneys general’s offices often enter into common interest agreements
when cooperating on multistate issues, just as individuals and corporations—including,
undoubtedly, Exxon—do when cooperating in litigation. See, e.g., Schaeffler v. United States,
806 F.3d 34, 40 (2d Cir. 2015) (discussing common interest privilege as applied in Second
Circuit); Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapo & Jepsen Ins. Serv., Inc., 870 N.E.2d 1105, 1109 (Mass.
2007) (recognizing common interest privilege under Massachusetts law). Exxon’s attempt to
make something so commonplace into something nefarious falls flat, and certainly fails to nudge
its claims into the realm of the plausible.
Fourth, Exxon presents as a “fact” in support of its claims that “the Attorney General
lacked a reasonable belief at the time she issued the CID that ExxonMobil could be held liable
for any of the claims within the scope of the CID, which seeks 40 years of ExxonMobil’s records
relating to climate change.” Doc. No. 165 at 24. Exxon’s assertion that “the Attorney General
lacked a reasonable belief” to support the CID is not a fact—it is a legal conclusion without the
support of any fact in the record. Id. at 24; see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[C]ourts are not
bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation” (internal quotes
omitted).). Simply repeating it does not make it true. Indeed, as noted above, the Massachusetts
Superior Court reached the opposite legal conclusion in its January 2017 opinion, finding that
Attorney General Healey had presented sufficient grounds for issuing the CID and rejecting
Exxon’s claims that the Attorney General was engaging in viewpoint discrimination and was
biased. See supra pp. 1 n.2 & 10. As also discussed above, the Attorney General has ample basis

To the contrary, query whether, if the alleged state attorneys general conspirators’ “real goal”
was so nefarious and illegal, they would include that goal in a written instrument, signed by
representatives of all seventeen attorneys general, that Exxon could obtain, as it apparently did,
by a public records request.
14

15

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 20 of 24

for believing an investigation of Exxon is warranted, as Exxon’s own attachments to the
Amended Complaint illustrate. See supra pp. 9-10.
Fifth, Exxon presents as a “fact” in support of its claims that “the CID, which regulates
out-of-state speech, is a product of this effort to control the public debate related to climate
change policy as it targets organizations which express views with which the Attorney General
disagrees.” Doc. No. 165 at 24. As discussed below, the CID does nothing to “regulate” speech,
either in fact or as a matter of law. See infra p. 17. Similarly, Exxon’s assertions that the CID “is
a product of this effort to control the public debate” and “target[] organizations which express
views with which the Attorney General disagrees” are just assertions, not facts, and are not
plausibly supported by the paltry facts in the Amended Complaint. Compare Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
681 (“[T]he allegations are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true.”); see also supra
p. 11.
Finally, Exxon presents as a “fact” in support of its claims that “Attorney General
Healey’s professed investigative theories are in conflict with federal regulations.” Doc. No. 165
at 24. Despite the immediately following sentence protesting, “[t]hese are not legal conclusions;
they are detailed factual allegations,” Exxon’s assertion that the state law rationale for Attorney
General Healey’s investigation is “in conflict with federal regulations” is plainly a legal
conclusion, not a fact, and is, in any case, belied by the SEC’s investigation into the same
conduct and the black letter law that state investor protection laws are not as a rule preempted by
federal law and regulations. See supra p. 10 n.10 and infra p. 18.
Clearing away Exxon’s conclusory assertions, Exxon is, once again, left with three facts:
(1) Attorney General Healey’s participation in the New York event, (2) her entry into a routine
common interest agreement, and (3) the issuance of the CID. A transcript of the remarks and the

16

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 21 of 24

texts of the agreement and CID are before the Court. Taken together, without Exxon’s
conclusory, conspiratorial flourishes, they simply do not “nudge” Exxon’s claims that Attorney
General Healey is biased against Exxon and engaged in a conspiracy to silence it “across the line
from conceivable to plausible,” and as such, Exxon’s claims must be dismissed. Twombly, 550
U.S. at 570.
C.

EXXON’S OTHER CLAIMS ARE FACIALLY DEFICIENT AS A
MATTER OF LAW AND MUST BE DISMISSED.

Exxon’s remaining claims—violation of Exxon’s rights under the Dormant Commerce
Clause and federal preemption (causes of action 5 and 6, respectively)—and the Texas state law
cognates to its federal claims (in causes of action 1-4 and 7) fail as a matter of law and therefore
must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
First, Exxon’s claim that the CID runs afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause because it
“effectively regulate[s] ExxonMobil’s out-of-state speech” and has “the practical effect of
primarily burdening interstate commerce” by requesting documents outside Massachusetts fails
on its face. FAC ¶¶ 118-121. It is settled law that a CID does not “regulate” speech, either inside
or outside Massachusetts; it seeks the production of documents through a process prescribed by
law. See, e.g., McGoff, 647 F.2d at 187-88 (administrative subpoenas “do not directly regulate
the content, time, place, or manner of expression, nor do they directly regulate political
associations”). In any event, Exxon’s cryptic recitation of doctrine “without providing any
additional factual matter that would show that such claims are plausible” or an allegation of “any
plausible interstate commerce impact” likewise fails to state a claim under Iqbal. Empire State
Beer Distrib. Ass’n ex rel. Alcoholic Beverage Wholesalers v. Patterson, No. 09 CIV. 10339
(DAB), 2010 WL 749828, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2010); see also Allco Fin. Ltd. v. Klee, 861
F.3d 82, 108 (2d Cir. 2017), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 15, 2017) (No. 17-737)

17

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 22 of 24

(“conclusory allegations do not allow us to make any inferences of excessive burden” sufficient
to state a Dormant Commerce Clause claim).
Meanwhile, Exxon has not even identified the federal law that could preempt Attorney
General Healey’s CID in connection with its Supremacy Clause claim, and that omission is fatal.
The governing rule is that federal law does not preempt actions by state authorities to protect
investors from deception and fraud. FAC ¶¶ 122-126; see also id. ¶¶ 77-81 (citing federal
regulations and policy statement). See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 77r(c)(1) (preserving state authority to
investigate “fraud or deceit” despite preemption of certain state regulation of securities); In re
Standard & Poor’s Rating Agency Litig., 23 F. Supp. 3d 378, 395-400 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (finding
no federal question jurisdiction over claims that state consumer protection lawsuits were
preempted by federal credit reporting laws); Fin. & Trading, Ltd. v. Rhodia, S.A., No. 04 Civ.
6083 (MBM), 2004 WL 2754862, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2004) (state investor protection
claims “are not created by the [Securities and Exchange Act of 1934] and thus are not subject to
exclusive federal jurisdiction, nor are [such] claims in any way preempted by federal securities
law”).
Finally, Exxon’s cognate Texas state law claims—common law conspiracy, viewpoint
discrimination, unreasonable search, deprivation of due process, and abuse of process (causes of
action 1-4 and 7, respectively)—do not state cognizable claims for relief because they are barred
by the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibits lawsuits in federal court against state officials
based on alleged violations of state law. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465
U.S. 89, 106 (1984) (contrary result would “conflict[] directly with the principles of federalism
that underlie the Eleventh Amendment”). Thus, the exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity
established in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)—which authorizes suits for prospective

18

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 23 of 24

injunctive relief against state officials based on ongoing violations of federal law—is
“inapplicable in a suit against state officials on the basis of state law.” Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at
106 (emphasis added). And the doctrine applies as readily to “state-law claims brought into
federal court under pendent jurisdiction” because such jurisdiction cannot authorize “evasion of
the immunity guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment.” Id. at 121.15 The Pennhurst doctrine is
applied widely and uniformly across federal courts, including the Second Circuit. See, e.g., Allen
v. Cuomo, 100 F.3d 253, 260 (2d Cir. 1996) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars federal suits
against state officials on the basis of state law.”). Because Exxon’s state-law claims ask this
Court to pass judgment on the Attorney General’s compliance with Texas—not federal—law, all
of them are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and must be dismissed.
Because these claims fail as a matter of law, they must be dismissed pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).
V. CONCLUSION
The Court now has before it several independent grounds that require dismissal of
Exxon’s Amended Complaint, including the grounds set forth herein. Attorney General Healey
respectfully requests that this Court grant her Renewed Motion to Dismiss and dismiss the
Amended Complaint as to her, with prejudice.

There is no federal common law “abuse of process” cause of action, leaving Exxon’s seventh
count to rest only on state law. Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 651-52 (1963); Berisic v.
Winckelman, No. 03 Civ. 1810 (NRB), 2003 WL 21714930, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2003).
15

19

 Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 246 Filed 12/21/17 Page 24 of 24

Respectfully submitted,
MAURA HEALEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MASSACHUSETTS
By her attorneys:
/s/ Christophe G. Courchesne
Richard Johnston (pro hac vice)
Chief Legal Counsel
richard.johnston@state.ma.us
Melissa A. Hoffer (pro hac vice)
Chief, Energy and Environment Bureau
melissa.hoffer@state.ma.us
Christophe G. Courchesne (pro hac vice)
Chief, Environmental Protection Division
christophe.courchesne@state.ma.us
I. Andrew Goldberg
andy.goldberg@state.ma.us
Peter C. Mulcahy (pro hac vice)
peter.mulcahy@state.ma.us
Assistant Attorneys General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 727-2200
Dated: December 21, 2017

20