In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 18-972C (Filed: March 18, 2020) ) BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION ) Suit to recover leasehold royalty INC., ) overpayments and interest; Federal Oil ) and Gas Royalty Management Act, 30 Plaintiff, ) U.S.C. §§ 1701-59, as amended by the ) Federal Oil and Gas Royalty v. ) Simplification and Fairness Act and the ) Fixing America’s Surface UNITED STATES, ) Transportation Act of 2015; statutory ) interpretation; Federal Savings Statute, 1 Defendant, ) U.S.C. § 109 ) ) Jonathan A. Hunter, Jones Walker LLP, New Orleans, Louisiana, for plaintiff. With him on the briefs was Sarah Y. Dicharry, Jones Walker LLP, New Orleans, Louisiana. Tanya B. Koenig, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With her on the briefs were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Allison Kidd-Miller, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Of counsel was David Kearney, Attorney-Advisor, Rocky Mountain Regional Solicitor’s Office, United States Department of the Interior, Lakewood, Colorado. OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Senior Judge. Plaintiff BP Exploration & Production, Inc. (“BP”) has brought suit against the United States (the “government”) acting through the Department of the Interior’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue (“ONRR”) to recover overpayments of royalties made to the government pursuant to lease agreements on oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The government refunded some, but not all, of the overpaid royalties claimed by BP and refused to pay interest on the amount refunded. This dispute turns on dueling interpretations of complex, interrelated sections of Title 30 of the United States Code concerning royalty disputes, specifically those adopted as part of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (“Royalty Management Act”), Pub. L. No. 97-451, 96 Stat. 2447 (codified at 30 U.S.C. § 1701-59), as amended by the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act (“Royalty Simplification Act”), Pub. L. No. 104-185, 110 Stat. 1700 (1996). On April 8, 2019, the court denied the government’s motion for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds and set a legal framework for consideration of the merits. See generally BP Expl. & Prod., Inc. v. United States, 142 Fed. Cl. 579 (2019). The United States then filed the administrative record on July 22, 2019, see ECF No. 30, and BP subsequently filed a motion for judgment on the administrative record, see Pl.’s Mot. for Judgment on the Admin. R. (“Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 37. The issues have been fully briefed, see Def.’s Resp. and Cross-Mot. for Judgment on the Admin. R. (“Def.’s Cross-Mot.”), ECF No. 42; Pl.’s Reply & Resp. to Def.’s Mot. (“Pl.’s Resp.”), ECF No. 43; Def.’s Reply to Pl.’s Resp. (“Def.’s Reply”), ECF No. 44, and the court held a hearing on March 3, 2020. The court concludes that BP timely filed its claim because the seven-year statute of limitations set out at ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals