William F. Downes

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.

federal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

procedure

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.

taxesprocedure

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.

taxespropertyprocedure

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.

business & regulatorypropertyfederal power

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.

environmentfederal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves claims by plaintiff Jim Sisco against his former employer Fabrication Technologies, Inc. and two supervisors for same-sex sexual harassment under Title VII, retaliation leading to termination, and related Wyoming state tort claims including intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional acts causing injury, and negligent supervision. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It dismissed the Title VII claims against the individual defendants as a matter of law with no personal liability, granted summary judgment on the federal claims, but denied summary judgment on the state-law intentional tort and negligent supervision claims after finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the supervisor's knowledge and conduct, and retained jurisdiction over the pendant state claims.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involves a motion in limine in a federal diversity action to determine the admissibility of evidence regarding a plaintiff's nonuse of a seat belt in a negligence suit arising from an automobile accident. The court analyzed whether Wyoming Statute § 31-5-1402(f), which bars introduction of such evidence, applies under the Erie doctrine and related standards, including the Rules of Decision Act. The court held that the statute governs because it is substantive law that affects the rights and obligations of parties in tort actions and ensures consistent outcomes between state and federal courts. The reasoning centered on distinguishing procedural rules from those that modify substantive rights, concluding the state provision controls over any conflicting federal evidentiary approach.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved taxpayers Maurice and Dorenda Jones suing an IRS employee and two bank officials after the bank honored an IRS Notice of Levy on the plaintiffs' account to collect alleged unpaid taxes. The plaintiffs claimed the levy was invalid and that the defendants' actions in serving or honoring it violated the law, seeking relief in state court before removal to federal court. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, ruling that the bank defendants had no duty to the plaintiffs and were protected by statutory immunity for honoring a levy, while the IRS defendant was shielded by sovereign immunity with no applicable waiver under 26 U.S.C. § 7426 for the assessed taxpayers themselves. It dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, rendering the plaintiffs' summary judgment motions moot. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a relator suing several accounting firms under the False Claims Act for allegedly causing natural gas companies to underpay federal royalties on production from federal lands. The relator claimed the auditors knew or should have known from their clients' records that gas was being measured inconsistently at input and output points, leading to false royalty reports filed with the Department of the Interior, but failed to investigate, accrue liabilities, or disclose the issue. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including failure to state a claim, lack of particularity in pleading fraud, and the FCA's public disclosure bar. The court granted the motion, holding that the complaints did not allege facts showing the auditors affirmatively caused false claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(7), as mere knowledge or inaction is insufficient without some action that brings about the false reports.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

In Cooperman v. David, plaintiffs sued a horseback riding guide after one plaintiff was injured when his saddle slipped during a guided excursion in Wyoming, alleging negligence in maintaining the equipment. The defendant moved for summary judgment under Wyoming’s Recreation Safety Act, arguing that a slipping saddle constitutes an inherent risk of horseback riding for which the provider owes no duty. The court granted the motion, holding that the post-Halpern statutory amendment redefined inherent risks as those characteristic of or integral to the activity and made the determination a question for the court rather than the jury; it found no genuine issue of material fact that slipping saddles are inherent to horseback riding. The court further rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the defendant assumed a duty of care, concluding that the Act supplants common-law assumed-duty principles in this context.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by a climbers' association and individual climbers to the National Park Service's Final Climbing Management Plan for Devils Tower National Monument, which included a voluntary request that climbers refrain from ascending the tower in June out of respect for its significance as a sacred site to some Native American tribes, along with an educational program and trail signs. Plaintiffs argued that these measures exceeded agency authority and violated constitutional limits, prompting review under the Administrative Procedure Act for whether the actions were arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law. The court upheld the plan's voluntary closure and related provisions, reasoning that the measures relied on self-regulation and education without coercion or mandatory enforcement, thereby constituting a permissible accommodation of religious interests on public land rather than an establishment of religion.

religious libertyfederal powerenvironment

This case involved a challenge by farm bureaus and other plaintiffs to the federal government's decision under the Endangered Species Act to designate and release an experimental population of gray wolves into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. The court reviewed whether the Fish and Wildlife Service's actions complied with ESA section 10(j) requirements that an experimental population be wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations and located outside the species' current range. The court determined that the designation was invalid because naturally dispersing wolves from Montana had already entered or could enter the reintroduction areas, making them not wholly separate or outside the current range. It further held that the agency failed to adequately justify its conclusion that subspecific distinctions among wolves were insignificant for purposes of the regulatory criteria.

environmentfederal power

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a Wyoming state conviction for conspiracy to commit kidnapping. The petitioner had his initial kidnapping and sexual assault convictions overturned on speedy trial grounds, then faced a second prosecution where statements he made during allocution at his first sentencing hearing were used as evidence against him; he raised claims including violation of Fifth Amendment self-incrimination rights, due process, ineffective assistance of counsel, double jeopardy, and speedy trial issues. The court granted the respondents' motion to dismiss, finding that federal collateral review is limited and secondary to direct state review, that the allocution statements were voluntary, and that the other constitutional claims lacked merit under applicable precedents.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a tenured University of Wyoming professor, Dr. Gene Gressley, who sued university officials including President Terry Roark and the Board of Trustees after being reassigned from his role as Director of the American Heritage Center, relocated to a basement office, and directed not to contact donors or solicit funds without approval, following his criticisms of how successors handled archival gifts and donor relations. Dr. Gressley alleged violations of his First Amendment rights to free speech and association, along with due process and other claims stemming from his tenure protections. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint. It reasoned that the plaintiff's communications did not sufficiently involve matters of public concern to trigger constitutional protections in the employment context, that any restrictions were within the university's authority to manage operations and communications, and that the reassignments did not violate tenure or other rights under applicable regulations.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employmentprocedure