Tucker et al v. Southwestern Energy Company et al

Filing 95

ORDER re 85 Order concerning recusal. The Court is not disqualified from sitting and there is no good reason for me to recuse. I will therefore continue in the case. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 4/6/12. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES TUCKER and
MINDY TUCKER

v.

PLAINTIFFS
No.l:ll-cv-44-DPM

SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY CO.;

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORP.;

and BHP BILLITON PETROLEUM

(FAYETTEVILLE) LLC

PHILLIP BERRY and
PEGGY BERRY

v.

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS
No.l:ll-cv-45-DPM

SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY CO.;
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORP.;
and BHP BILLITON PETROLEUM
(FAYETTEVILLE) LLC

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
I appreciate the parties' submissions on the recusal issues. I know this
was extra and unexpected work; but the additional legal analysis and the new
facts were helpful. After further consideration of the issues in light of the
parties' submissions, my conclusion is that I am not disqualified from sitting
and there is no good reason that I should recuse. 28 U.s.C. § 455(a) and (b)(4).
I will therefore continue in the case.

So Ordered.

D.P. MarshallJf
United States District Judge

-2­