Shell Oil Company, Union Oil Company of California, Atlantic Richfield Company v. United States

<!-- PageHeader="NOTE: This order is nonprecedential." -->

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

SHELL OIL COMPANY, UNION OIL COMPANY OF
CALIFORNIA, ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY,
and TEXACO, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellant.

2010-5034

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in case no. 06-CV-141, Senior Judge Loren A.
Smith.

ON MOTION

Before RADER, FRIEDMAN, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.
GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The United States moves to remand this case to the
United States Court of Federal Claims so that the district
court may consider its RCFC 60(b) motion to vacate the

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="SHELL OIL COMPANY v. US" -->

district court's judgment and for recusal. The United
States also requests that this court direct the Court of
Federal Claims to assign a new judge to rule on its Rule
60(b) motion. The United States moves to stay
proceedings in this appeal. Shell Oil Company, et al.
moves for an extension of time to respond and opposes the
United States' motions.

The United States' Rule 60(b) motion asserts that the
trial court judge should recuse and should vacate the
underlying judgment. The United States states that the
trial court judge indicated he will grant the motion, at
least in part. However, the trial court indicated that it
could not rule on the motion because this court presently
has jurisdiction over the appeal of the judgment. In these
circumstances, we deem the better course is to remand so
that the trial court may rule in the first instance on the
United States' motions. The United States' argument,
that the Court of Federal Claims should assign a new
judge to rule on its Rule 60(b) motion, should first be
presented to the Court of Federal Claims and thereafter
may be raised on appeal from a subsequent ruling, if
appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to remand is granted.

(2) The motion for an extension of time to file a
response is granted.

(3) All other motions are denied.

(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.

<!-- PageBreak -->

SHELL OIL COMPANY v. US

FOR THE COURT

MAY 1 9 2010

Date

/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk

cc: Michael W. Kirk, Esq.
Stephen C. Tosini, Esq.
s20

Issued as a mandate:

MAY 1 9 2010

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
MAY 1 9 2010

JAN HORBALY
CLERK