Exxon Mobil v. Healey, 28 F.4th 383

Background

In 2015–2016 the New York AG served a subpoena (Nov. 2015) and the Massachusetts AG served a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) (Apr. 2016) probing whether Exxon misstated climate‑change risks to investors/consumers.
Exxon filed federal suit in Texas (June 15, 2016) against both AGs seeking to enjoin the probes and a Massachusetts state petition to set aside the CID one day later.
Massachusetts Superior Court denied Exxon’s petition and compelled production (Jan. 11, 2017); the SJC affirmed (Apr. 13, 2018) and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari (Jan. 7, 2019).
The federal case was transferred to SDNY; the district court dismissed Massachusetts claims as barred by res judicata and dismissed New York claims for failure to state a claim, denying leave to amend as futile.
While this appeal was pending the NY AG filed an enforcement action based on the NY probe; after trial the NY court ruled for Exxon, the NY AG did not appeal, and the parties stipulated to return/destruction procedures for produced documents.
The Second Circuit dismissed Exxon’s appeal as moot as to the New York AG and affirmed the district court judgment as to the Massachusetts AG on res judicata grounds.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of claims against NY AG	NY probe not moot: Exxon needs return/destruction of produced documents, injunctive/monitoring relief, and declaratory relief to prevent future viewpoint discrimination	NY investigation and enforcement action have ended; enforcement action resolved in Exxon’s favor; parties stipulated procedures for return/destruction; no ongoing violation	Appeal as to NY AG dismissed as moot; stipulation and trial outcome eliminated prospective relief and mootness exceptions did not apply
Preclusive effect of MA state judgment (res judicata)	MA action was limited; federal constitutional claims were not decided and thus not precluded; different remedies in federal court	Parties identical; claims arise from same transaction and could have been litigated in MA; final state judgment on the merits exists	Affirmed: MA claims barred by res judicata because they were or could have been litigated in MA proceedings
Request to vacate district-court judgment on appeal (Munsingwear vacatur)	Court should vacate dismissal because mootness occurred while appeal pending and NY AG’s voluntary conduct mooted case	Mootness resulted from both parties’ litigation choices (Exxon pressed state action to trial); equities do not favor vacatur	Denied vacatur; Exxon’s actions contributed to mootness and equitable relief was unwarranted
Denial of leave to amend / failure-to-state claim (NY merits)	District court demanded evidence and ignored viewpoint‑discrimination theory; amendment should have been allowed	Complaints failed to plausibly plead improper motive; amendment would be futile	For NY claims court did not reach merits due to mootness; district court’s refusal to permit futile amendment was not disturbed for MA (claims precluded)

Key Cases Cited

Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (case-or-controversy standing/mootness principles)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (permits prospective relief against state officials for ongoing federal violations)
Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (return/destruction of produced documents can provide meaningful relief against mootness)
County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (voluntary cessation mootness standard: no reasonable expectation of recurrence)
United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (vacatur of lower-court judgment when appeal becomes moot)
U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 (limits on vacatur when mootness results from settlement/party action)
Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (federal courts must give preclusive effect to state judgments where state law so provides)
Kobrin v. Bd. of Registration in Med., 444 Mass. 837 (Massachusetts res judicata test: identity of parties, cause of action, and final judgment)