Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-00601/USCOURTS-ca10-16-00601-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Binger Operations LLC
Petitioner
Lynda Compton
Respondent
Phillip Compton
Respondent
ConocoPhillips Company
Petitioner
East Binger (Marchand) Unit
Petitioner
Phillips 66 Company
Petitioner
Billy Stephenson
Respondent
Cheryl Stephenson
Respondent

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 16, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

EAST BINGER (MARCHAND) UNIT; 

BINGER OPERATIONS LLC; 

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, 

formerly known as Phillips Petroleum 

Company; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, 

 Petitioners,

v.

BILLY STEPHENSON, husband, for 

themselves and all others similarly situated; 

CHERYL STEPHENSON, wife, for 

themselves and all others similarly situated; 

PHILLIP COMPTON, husband, for 

themselves and all others similarly situated; 

LYNDA COMPTON, wife, for themselves 

and all others similarly situated, 

 Respondents.

No. 16-601

(D.C. No. 5:15-CV-00341-C)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before HOLMES, MATHESON, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter comes on for consideration of the “Petition for Permission to Appeal 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1) by ConocoPhillips Company, East Binger (Marchand) 

Unit, Binger Operations, LLC, and Phillips 66 Company” and the response filed thereto. 

The decision whether to grant leave to appeal under § 1453(c)(1) “remains a 

matter ‘committed to the informed discretion of the reviewing court. . . .’” BP America v. 

Appellate Case: 16-601 Document: 01019620731 Date Filed: 05/16/2016 Page: 1 
2

Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson, 613 F.3d 1029, 1035 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting College of 

Dental Surgeons of Puerto Rico v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 585 F.3d 33, 39 (1st 

Cir. 2009)).

In BP America, we set forth the following factors to be considered:

(1) the presence of an important CAFA-related question; (2) whether the 

question is unsettled; (3) whether the question, at first glance, appears to be 

either incorrectly decided or at least fairly debatable; (4) whether the 

question is consequential to the resolution of a particular case; (5) whether 

the question is likely to evade effective review if left for consideration only 

after final judgment; (6) whether the question is likely to recur; (7) whether 

the application arises from a decision or order that is sufficiently final to 

position the case for intelligent review; and (8) whether the probable harm 

to the applicant should an immediate appeal be refused outweighs the 

probable harm to the other parties should an immediate appeal be 

entertained.

Id. at 1034 (citing College of Dental Surgeons of Puerto Rico 585 F.3d at 38-39 

(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)).

After reviewing these factors, we have determined that the instant petition does 

not make a sufficiently strong case for review. 

Accordingly, the petition is DENIED. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Ellen Rich Reiter

 Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 16-601 Document: 01019620731 Date Filed: 05/16/2016 Page: 2