This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case, a nonprecedential opinion affirming the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. The court also issued three nonprecedential orders, including two orders in patent cases denying petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer the underlying cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.
Shell Oil Company v. United States (Precedential)
This case has been before us on four prior occasions. At issue is the government’s obligation under World War II era contracts to indemnify Shell Oil Company; Atlantic Richfield Company; Texaco, Inc.; and Union Oil Company of California (collectively, “the Oil Companies”) for environmental remediation costs they incurred due to their production of aviation gasoline (“avgas”) for the war effort. We have held that the government is contractually liable to reimburse these costs. Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 751 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Liability Decision”). And we have confirmed that the government’s contractual obligations encompass all of the remediation costs that the Oil Companies have incurred. Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 896 F.3d 1299, 1310–11 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Damages Decision”). Consistent with those decisions, in 2019, the government reimbursed the Oil Companies for the remediation costs incurred through November 2015, and interest thereon.
Because remediation efforts remain ongoing, the Oil Companies filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”), seeking damages for additional remediation costs incurred between November 2015 and November 2019, and for interest related to those costs. The Claims Court found the government liable for remediation costs incurred from November 30, 2015 through September 30, 2019, as well as interest accruing through the date of final payment. Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 148 Fed. Cl. 781, 796–97 (2020) (“Shell II”). The government appeals from that decision, arguing that: (1) res judicata bars the Oil Companies’ claims for damages; and (2) the Claims Court erred in finding that it had jurisdiction over the Oil Companies’ claims under the Contract Settlement Act of 1944 (“CSA”) and, thus, erred in awarding interest under the CSA. We disagree with the government on both points and affirm the Claims Court’s decision. In doing so, we hope to put an end to the government’s continued re- sistance to making payments we have found it is obligated to make.
Gravelle v. Kaba Ilco Corp. (Nonprecedential)
Gordon Gravelle filed this case against Kaba Ilco Corp. (Kaba), alleging federal- and state-law wrongs. The district court entered judgment against him on the merits and awarded attorneys’ fees against him. After that award became final without his filing an appeal, he filed a motion, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), for relief from the court’s fee award. The court denied the motion. Gravelle v. Kaba Ilco Corp., No. 5:13-cv-00642, 2019 WL 6851605 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 16, 2019) (Rule 60(b) Order). On Mr. Gravelle’s appeal, we affirm the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion.
Roby v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Harold L. Roby, Jr. appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision denying his request for an increased disability rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.114, Diagnostic Code (“DC”) 7203. See Roby v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 91 (2019). Because we disagree with the Veterans Court’s application of controlling Supreme Court precedent and its interpretation of 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.114, DC 7203 and 4.7, we vacate and remand.
Allen v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
As the United States Court of Federal Claims explained in its decision in this case, Mr. Allen’s claims did not raise a question over which the court has jurisdiction, and consequently the court dismissed Mr. Allen’s complaint. On appeal here, Mr. Allen has not pointed to any error in the court’s reasoning, and because we perceive no error in the dismissal of Mr. Allen’s complaint, we affirm the final judgment of the Court of Federal Claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims is hereby affirmed.
In re Apple Inc.(Nonprecedential Order)
Koss Corporation filed the underlying patent infringement suit against Apple Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Apple maintains its principal place of business in Cupertino, California, but also has a large corporate campus in Austin, Texas. Apple moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the infringement action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The district court denied the motion. Apple filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing transfer.
* * *
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
In re Google LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
Google LLC petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. EcoFactor, Inc. opposes the petition.
* * *
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.