This case involves 73 qui tam actions filed by Relator Jack J. Grynberg under the False Claims Act against over 300 gas pipeline companies, alleging that the defendants knowingly mismeasured the volume and heating content of natural gas produced from federal and Indian lands, leading to underpayment of royalties over a decade. The complaints, brought under the reverse false claims provision of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(7), were transferred for multidistrict proceedings, and defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court considered the Special Master's report on whether the allegations were based on public disclosures from prior 1995 litigation, government reports, and other sources listed in § 3730(e)(4)(A), and whether Grynberg qualified as an original source with direct and independent knowledge under § 3730(e)(4)(B). After reviewing extensive discovery and evidence of public disclosures such as the earlier dismissed complaint and expert reports, the court evaluated compliance with the FCA's jurisdictional bar and seal requirements.
This case concerns whether the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming should suspend attorney Jo Ann Fulton from practicing in that court after the Wyoming Supreme Court imposed a three-year suspension for professional misconduct. Fulton had a documented history of untimely and deficient filings in the Tenth Circuit, resulting in sanctions and prior reprimands, followed by additional complaints that led the Wyoming Board of Professional Responsibility to recommend suspension for dereliction of duties. The court applied its local rules requiring identical discipline for attorneys sanctioned by another court unless the attorney demonstrates due process violations, infirmity of proof, grave injustice, or that different discipline is warranted. Fulton’s challenges to the state proceedings’ jurisdiction and evidence handling were rejected as unsupported, leading the court to order the same three-year suspension from practice in the District of Wyoming.
In Devin v. United States, taxpayers who had invested in an abusive tax shelter called Crowne Oil Technology Partners sued the IRS after it assessed additional taxes for 1983 based on a Tax Court decision disallowing partnership-level deductions. The plaintiffs claimed that an oral settlement agreement reached with IRS special counsel in 1989, similar to their written settlements for 1981 and 1982, limited their losses to out-of-pocket contributions and that their amended return and payment had been accepted on that basis. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, holding that tax settlements are governed exclusively by IRC sections 7121 and 7122, which require a written agreement, and that neither verbal assurances nor the filing of an amended return creates a binding settlement. The court also rejected equitable estoppel against the government and found the plaintiffs' timeliness challenge unsupported by evidence or legal argument.
This case involved a dispute over the timeliness of redeeming real property seized and sold by the IRS for unpaid taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 6337(b)(1). Plaintiff Westland Holdings, Inc., as a mortgagee of the former owner, tendered payment to redeem the property on May 12, 2004, 180 days after the November 14, 2003 sale, but the IRS rejected the attempt as one day late. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, holding that the redemption was timely. The core reasoning was that the statutory phrase "within 180 days after the sale" excludes the day of the sale from the calculation period, consistent with the plain language, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a), interpretive case law, and the traditional policy of leniency toward redemption rights.
This case involves Colorado plaintiffs who hold overriding royalty interests (ORRI) derived from federal oil and gas leases on Wyoming lands, suing the defendant energy companies for underpayment and related claims under the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act (WRPA) as well as common-law theories such as unjust enrichment, breach of duty, and failure to report. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the state-law claims. The court granted the motion and dismissed the WRPA-based claims (First, Second, Fifth through Tenth), holding that the original federal leases and subsequent assignments expressly required the ORRI to be calculated in the same manner as the federal lessor’s royalty under federal regulations, and that the parties’ intent at the time of assignment was to follow that federal valuation method rather than state law. Because WRPA therefore does not govern the royalty computation, the plaintiffs’ state statutory and related claims fail as a matter of law.
The case involved environmental groups challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' issuance of General Permit 98-08 under the Clean Water Act, which authorized limited dredge and fill discharges for oil and gas development activities including coalbed methane extraction in Wyoming. The permit was supported by an environmental assessment and combined decision document addressing NEPA and CWA requirements. The court reviewed the agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act and determined that the Corps violated NEPA by failing to evaluate cumulative impacts to non-wetland resources, impacts to private ranchlands, and the sufficiency of mitigation measures. The court further held that these deficiencies prevented a valid finding of minimal cumulative adverse effects under the CWA, leading to a remand for additional analysis.
