FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEWS RELEASE
May 16, 2016
For More Information, contact:
Luther Strange
Mike Lewis (334) 353-2199
Alabama Attorney General
Joy Patterson (334) 242-7491
Page 1 of 1
ALABAMA JOINS INTERVENTION IN CASE TO PROTECT FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHT OF BUSINESSES FROM GOVERNMENT THREATS OF
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
(MONTGOMERY) – Attorney General Luther Strange announced that Alabama has
joined Texas in requesting that a Texas judge rule against an unconstitutional
investigation conducted by the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands against
ExxonMobil for its views on climate change.
“The fundamental right of freedom of speech is under assault by an Attorney General
pursuing an agenda against a business that doesn’t share his views on the
environment,” said Attorney General Strange. “The Attorney General of the Virgin
Islands, an American Territory, is abusing the power of his government office to punish
and intimidate a company for its climate change views which run counter to that of his
own.
“This is more than just a free speech case. It is a battle over whether a government
official has a right to launch a criminal investigation against anyone who doesn’t share
his radical views,” Attorney General Strange added. “In this case an attorney general
has subpoenaed ExxonMobil to provide some 40 years’ worth of records so that it can
conduct a witch hunt against the company for its views on the environment. This is a
very disturbing trend that must be stopped and I am pleased to join with Texas
Attorney General Ken Paxton in filing an intervention plea in support of the First
Amendment.”
The intervention plea was filed Monday in the case of ExxonMobil Corporation v. Claude
Earl Walker, Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands.
A copy of the intervention plea is attached.
–30–
501 Washington Avenue * Montgomery, AL 36104 * (334) 242-7300
www.ago.state.al.us
NO. 017-284890-16
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION ß IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
ß
Plaintiff, ß
ß
v. ß
ß
CLAUDE EARL WALKER, Attorney ß
General of the United States Virgin ß TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
Islands, in his official capacity, ß
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & ß
TOLL, PLLC, in its official capacity ß
as designee, and LINDA SINGER, in ß
her official capacity as designee, ß
ß
TH
Defendants. ß 17 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLEA IN INTERVENTION OF THE
STATES OF TEXAS AND ALABAMA
The States of Texas and Alabama intervene under Rule 60 of the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure to protect the due process rights of their residents.
I. Background.
At a recent gathering on climate change in New York City, Claude Earl
Walker, Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands, announced an
investigation by his office (“Investigation”) into a company whose product he
claims “is destroying this earth.” Pl. Compl. Ex. B at 16. A week earlier,
ExxonMobil Corporation, a New Jersey corporation with principal offices in
Texas, was served with a subpoena seeking documents responsive to alleged
violations of the penal code of the Virgin Islands. Id. at ∂ 20, Ex. A at 1. Though
General Walker signed the subpoena, it arrived in an envelope postmarked in
Washington, D.C, with a return address for Cohen Milstein, a law firm that
States’ Plea in Intervention Page 1
describes itself as a “pioneer in plaintiff class action lawsuits” and “the most
effective law firm in the United States for lawsuits with a strong social and
political component.” Id. at ∂∂ 4, 20. ExxonMobil now seeks to quash the
subpoena in Texas state court, asserting, inter alia, that the Investigation
violates the First Amendment and that the participation of Cohen Milstein,
allegedly on a contingency fee basis, is an unconstitutional delegation of
prosecutorial power. See generally id.
The intervenors are States whose sovereign power and investigative and
prosecutorial authority are implicated by the issues and tactics raised herein.
General Walker’s Investigation appears to be driven by ideology, and not law,
as demonstrated not only by his collusion with Cohen Milstein, but also by his
request for almost four decades worth of material from a company with no
business operations, employees, or assets in the Virgin Islands. Id. at ∂ 7. And
it is disconcerting that the apparent pilot of the discovery expedition is a
private law firm that could take home a percentage of penalties (if assessed)
available only to government prosecutors. We agree with ExxonMobil that
serious jurisdictional concerns exist, but to protect the fundamental right of
impartiality in criminal and quasi-criminal investigations, we intervene.
II. Standard for Intervention.
Rule of Civil Procedure 60 provides that “[a]ny party may intervene by
filing a pleading, subject to being stricken out by the court for sufficient cause
on the motion of any party.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 60. “Rule 60 . . . provides . . . that
States’ Plea in Intervention Page 2
any party may intervene” in litigation in which they have a sufficient interest.
Mendez v. Brewer, 626 S.W.2d 498, 499 (Tex. 1982). “A party has a justiciable
interest in a lawsuit, and thus a right to intervene, when his interests will be
affected by the litigation.” Jabri v. Alsayyed, 145 S.W.3d 660, 672 (Tex. App. –
Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (citing Law Offices of Windle Turley v.
Ghiasinejad, 109 S.W.3d 68, 71 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2003, no pet.)). And an
intervenor is not required to secure a court’s permission to intervene in a cause
of action or prove that it has standing. Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe
Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652, 657 (Tex. 1990).
There is no pre-judgment deadline for intervention. Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Ledbetter, 251 S.W.3d 31, 36 (Tex. 2008). Texas courts recognize an “expansive”
intervention doctrine in which a plea in intervention is untimely only if it is
“filed after judgment.” State v. Naylor, 466 S.W.3d 783, 788 (Tex. 2015)
(quoting First Alief Bank v. White, 682 S.W.2d 251, 252 (Tex. 1984)). There is
no final judgment in this case, thus making the States’ intervention timely.
III. Intervenors Have an Interest in Ensuring Constitutional
Safeguards for Prosecutions of its Residents.
The alleged use of contingency fees in this case raises serious due
process considerations that the intervenors have an interest in protecting.
To begin, government attorneys have a constitutional duty to act
impartially in the execution of their office. The Supreme Court has explained
that attorneys who represent the public do not represent an ordinary party in
litigation, but “a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as
States’ Plea in Intervention Page 3
compelling as its obligation to govern at all.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S.
78, 88, (1935).
Contingency fee arrangements cut against the duty of impartiality by
giving the attorney that represents the government a financial stake in the
outcome. Thus, the use of contingency fees is highly suspect in criminal cases
and, more generally, when fundamental rights are at stake. State v. Lead
Indus., Ass’n, Inc., 951 A.2d 428, 476 n. 48 (R.I. 2008) (doubting that contingent
fees would ever be appropriate in a criminal case); Int’l Paper Co. v. Harris
Cty., 445 S.W.3d 379, 393 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.)
(contingency fees are impermissible in cases implicating fundamental rights).
Here, the Investigation appears to be a punitive enforcement action, as
all of the statutes that ExxonMobil purportedly violated are found in the
criminal code of the Virgin Islands. 14 V.I.C. ßß 551, 605, 834. In addition,
ExxonMobil asserts a First Amendment interest to be free from viewpoint
discrimination. Intervenors, in sum, have a strong interest in ensuring that
contingency fee arrangements are not used in criminal and quasi criminal
cases where a multitude of fundamental rights, including speech, lie in the
balance.
IV. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief.
The States identified herein, Texas and Alabama, by and through this
intervention, request notice and appearance, and the opportunity to defend the
rule of law before this Court.
States’ Plea in Intervention Page 4
Respectfully submitted,
LUTHER STRANGE KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Alabama Attorney General of Texas
501 Washington Ave.
Montgomery, Alabama 36104 JEFFREY C. MATEER
First Assistant Attorney General
BRANTLEY STARR
Deputy Attorney General for Legal
Counsel
AUSTIN R. NIMOCKS
Associate Deputy Attorney General for
Special Litigation
/s/ Austin R. Nimocks
AUSTIN R. NIMOCKS
Texas Bar No. 24002695
Special Litigation Division
P.O. Box 12548, Mail Code 001
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENORS
States’ Plea in Intervention Page 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading has been
served on the following counsel of record on this 16th day of May, 2016, in accordance
with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, electronically through the electronic
filing manager:
Patrick J. Conlon
patrick.j.conlon@exxonmobil.com
Daniel E. Bolia
daniel.e.bolia@exxonmobil.com
1301 Fannin Street
Houston, TX 77002
Theodore V. Wells, Jr.
twells@paulweiss.com
Michele Hirshman
mhirshman@paulweiss.com
Daniel J. Toal
dtoal@paulweiss.com
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON, LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Justin Anderson
janderson@paulweiss.com
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON, LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006-1047
Ralph H. Duggins
rduggins@canteyhanger.com
Philip A. Vickers
pvickers@canteyhanger.com
Alix D. Allison
aallison@canteyhanger.com
CANTEY HANGER LLP
600 W. 6th St. #300
Fort Worth, TX 76102
States’ Plea in Intervention Page 6
Nina Cortell
nina.cortell@haynesboone.com
HAYNES & BOONE, LLP
301 Commerce Street
Suite 2600
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Counsel for Exxon Mobil Corporation
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
lsinger@cohenmilstein.com
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 500, West Tower
Washington, D.C. 20005
Linda Singer, Esq.
lsinger@cohenmilstein.com
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 500, West Tower
Washington, D.C. 20005
Claude Earl Walker, Esq.
claude.walker@doj.vi.gov
Attorney General
3438 Kronprindsens Gade
GERS Complex, 2nd Floor
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
/s/ Austin R. Nimocks
Austin R. Nimocks
Associate Deputy Attorney General for
Special Litigation
States’ Plea in Intervention Page 7
