Editorial illustration accompanying a review of Shell-related U.S. and Australian court records.
21 October 2026. This is a dated selection based on the primary records identified below. U.S. docket reports were retrieved on 20–21 October; Australian decisions are reported at their stated dates. Unverified leads are explicitly labelled and attributed; unchecked later proceedings are identified. Neither is used to support a firm current-status claim.
A review of three PACER exports changes the picture in an earlier U.S. court-docket draft. Some cases have been dismissed. Others continue, but Shell has left the case, appears only as a parent company or creditor, or participates in a coordinated proceeding already represented elsewhere in the results. A missing closing date cannot answer whether a claim against Shell remains pending.
What the search actually produced
The three supplied exports contain 512 rows: 76 for Shell plc, 253 for Shell USA and 183 for Royal Dutch Shell plc. Matching by court and normalized case number produces 414 court/case records, with the original source rows retained. This removes 98 repeated rows; it does not turn the result into 414 distinct disputes. Appeals, transfers, related proceedings and corporate-disclosure matches can overlap.
Eighty-three records had no recorded closing date. Forty-seven were outside the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, and all 47 received current docket checks. All 36 panel leads now have primary-source context, ranging from confirmed transfers and denied requests to reports with no member proceedings available. That does not establish the current merits status of every related district case. Including additional closure checks, master proceedings and two cases from the original draft absent from the exports, 70 U.S. district, bankruptcy or appellate docket reports have now been checked; McLafferty received a primary-order review only; Manning and Portageville were checked through a shared historical dismissal order rather than individual current reports. Ten additional panel reports were checked. The register preserves the different evidence levels. It is not a comprehensive litigation inventory.
Corrections to cases already in the earlier draft
In People of Michigan v. BP, the September 22 opinion dismissed the federal Sherman Act claim with prejudice for lack of antitrust standing. The Michigan-law claim was dismissed without prejudice after the court declined supplemental jurisdiction. The docket is closed. Those grounds should replace any suggestion that this federal case remains active; they do not establish the alleged conspiracy as fact. September 22 opinion, docket 46.
In Sheikh v. Shell USA, the June 22 amended opinion partly granted Shell’s summary-judgment motion on time-barred claims, while factual disputes preserved timely claims. It also denied Sheikh’s partial-summary-judgment motion and dismissed abandoned hostile-work-environment claims. Trial was reset to October 26, 2026; the earlier September setting was superseded. No verdict or final merits judgment appeared in the retrieved report. Docket and amended opinion 67.
Kennedy v. Exxon Mobil remained stayed in the retrieved report. In Leonetti v. Equilon, counsel anticipated discontinuance, but the September 28 order still required either discontinuance or a status update by November 23. Anticipating a dismissal is different from filing one. Kennedy, entries 76–77; Leonetti, September 28 order.
Other known cases also require precise descriptions. Shell is the plaintiff in Shell USA v. USA, where an earlier default was set aside and settlement discussions did not establish a completed settlement. In ATNY Yanbu, the Shell entities are garnishees under maritime attachment procedure. Neither record supports presenting Shell simply as a defendant found to have committed wrongdoing. Court record; Court record.
Two cases in the original draft were absent from the supplied exports and have now been checked separately. In Beck v. Transocean, the March order dismissed employee and borrowed-employee relationship claims with prejudice while reserving other claims. Shell Offshore’s summary-judgment motion had no ruling identified through the latest entry; a September 18 schedule sets trial for May 3, 2027. In Dobronski v. Equilon, the latest retrieved entry is a May 15 corporate disclosure, later than the draft’s March 27 mirror date; no disposition of Equilon’s dismissal motion appeared. Beck, entries 39,61,79 and 86; Dobronski, entries 7–11.
Newly checked records narrow the list of continuing Shell claims
Hutt v. Shell PLC was absent from the recovered draft. Its complaint alleges discrimination and retaliation; the October 13 ruling denied a venue-transfer motion. That procedural ruling did not decide whether the allegations were true. The docket references a related Texas case, so the filings should not automatically be counted as separate underlying disputes. Hutt docket, entries 4, 10 and 13.
Several additional records supply exclusions or qualifications. Holmon’s amended complaint terminated Shell USA in January. Hoff’s March 17 consent-dismissal order dismissed all claims against Shell USA with prejudice. In Gabriel, the reviewed March 4 order dismissed all Avondale crossclaims and third-party claims without prejudice, including the claim involving Shell; a later trial setting in the remaining case does not revive that claim. Holmon, entry 12; Hoff, text order 389; Gabriel, order 62.
Mouton’s October 20 order dismissed all claims without prejudice and the docket records closure. Paluha’s October 6 order dismissed the case with prejudice after an earlier settlement in principle and administrative termination. These entries support their stated procedural outcomes, without establishing undisclosed settlement terms or a finding of liability. Mouton, order 96; Paluha, entries 65–67.
A Shell name can also arise through corporate ownership or creditor participation. Keathley’s disclosure identifies a financial-interest chain through Poseidon and Shell Midstream; it does not make Shell plc a named defendant. In the High Mesa bankruptcies, Shell entities withdrew creditor claims in 2023. Reopening the Holdings estate in 2025 does not by itself revive those claims. Keathley, disclosure 8; Court record; Court record.
Continuing proceedings are not findings of wrongdoing
Other checked reports show continuing procedural activity. The Rhode Island Conservation Law Foundation case has a January 2027 dispositive-motion deadline; denial of an expert-exclusion motion did not prove the environmental allegations. Harmon’s ERISA bench-trial evidence concluded in 2025, but the later proposed findings were party submissions; no post-trial judgment appeared through the latest retrieved entry. Court record; Court record.
The Maine, San Juan and Bayamón appeal reports showed briefing activity and no appellate judgment or mandate in the retrieved records. The X Corp advertiser appeal likewise showed an appellee briefing deadline of November 3, 2026. Its district dismissal must be separated by entity: jurisdictional dismissal without prejudice for Shell Brands International, and failure-to-state-a-claim dismissal with prejudice for Shell USA. The Justice Department’s appellate advocacy is not a judicial finding. Maine; San Juan; Bayamón; X Corp.
Older panel results need family-level reading
The Brent master report is marked closed. It records the 2017 consolidated-complaint dismissal and the October 23, 2019 appellate affirmance and mandate. The Supreme Court separately denied certiorari on June 15, 2020. The member list and transfer order connect older search results to that coordinated litigation; they are not a fresh set of current cases. Individual member dockets have not all been separately rechecked. Master docket, entries 454–457; Supreme Court docket 19-1141.
Crowl, Cushnie, Duong and Souder belong to the coordinated Jiffy Lube text-message litigation. Its current master report is closed, and the reviewed February 20, 2013 judgment grants final settlement approval and dismisses the seven-action litigation with prejudice. Paragraph 22 expressly prevents treating the settlement as an admission or finding of liability or truth of the allegations. Retained enforcement jurisdiction does not make this an ongoing merits dispute. Master docket, entries 96–100; final judgment 97, paragraphs 22 and 26–27.
Panel appearances can also record unsuccessful transfer attempts. Sparks was found inappropriate for inclusion in asbestos MDL 875, and Rhode Island’s MTBE transfer request was denied. Rhode Island’s separate federal docket then records a March 27, 2017 dismissal without prejudice; this review does not establish any later state-court outcome. District docket, stipulation 87 and March 27 text order. Deuyour and Berlin have affirmative transfer records. Sparks’s district docket separately records voluntary dismissal of the entire action on July 11, 2013. That docket description does not specify prejudice; Deuyour’s transferee docket separately records dismissal without prejudice for lack of prosecution in October 2013. Berlin’s latest order, dated March 12, 2025, directs that the record show settlement against all defendants no later than 2014; the earlier administrative closure alone would not have established that outcome. Sparks, entry 1; Rhode Island, entry 37; Deuyour, entry 31; Berlin, entries 53–54.
The natural-gas master is also closed. Its June 5, 2017 judgment approves the Coral settlement and dismisses the covered Midwest class claims with prejudice, including the Learjet and Heartland actions. The judgment identifies Shell Energy North America as Coral’s successor and expressly excludes any admission or finding of fault or liability. Reorganized FLI is excluded from the class definitions. Its separate individual record instead supplies a December 6, 2016 order dismissing its claims against Coral, succeeded by Shell Energy North America, with prejudice and without costs. The settlement terms are confidential and were not sought or reviewed. FLI order 258, pages 1–2. Master docket and judgment 2903, paragraphs 10–12.
District follow-up also changes the reading of two older panel leads. Dinvaut was remanded to Louisiana state court in March 2023, which leaves the later state outcome outside this review. Dugas’s August 2016 closure order records the plaintiff’s representation that Shell claims were resolved, while noting that the appropriate dismissal stipulations had not been filed and providing conditional closure terms. Its later judgment concerning Henkel and Dexter should not be attributed to Shell. Dinvaut, docket 52; Dugas, full order 997.
Poche’s Louisiana docket supplies another completed historical proceeding: its November 15, 2017 order dismisses the individual claims with prejudice. The earlier appellate ruling concerned specified other defendants and should not be presented as a Shell merits decision. Poche, entries 617–620; Deuyour, entry 10; Berlin, entry 86.
For Manning, Portageville, Hinesburg and Brewster, the reviewed December 5, 2014 stipulation and order expressly dismisses claims against listed Shell-related settling defendants with prejudice. The exhibit identifies the Shell entities and the caption matches all four transferred cases. The current Brewster and Hinesburg member reports are closed; later shared counsel entries do not show a revived Shell claim. The current MTBE master’s other-defendant proceedings are separate. Shared order, pages 1 and 4.
Three AFFF-related leads—Allsman, Womack and Blasa—were transferred into coordinated proceedings in South Carolina. Their member dockets identify dismissals involving other defendants. A targeted search of the earlier master text and the 2026 report did not identify a Shell-specific disposition. That limited result cannot establish that claims against Shell remain active: generic orders and attachment lists may affect member cases without an exact name or case-number match. Current Shell-specific status: not independently verified. The transfer and the identified other-defendant dismissals are verified procedural events; they do not resolve that separate question. Allsman member docket; Womack member docket; Blasa member docket; Master docket; targeted 2018–2026 review.
Australia: primary decisions give a mixed picture
In Quinlan v. Shell Energy Operations [2026] QSC 115, Cooper J’s June 10 judgment orders limited further disclosure and dismisses the other specified disclosure relief. It accepts a proper basis for redacting irrelevant third-party employee salary and contact information. The expanded challenge to legal professional privilege was adjourned; this judgment does not determine the underlying retaliation allegations. A later parliamentary uncorrected proof records ASIC agreeing to consider the matter, which does not establish an opened investigation. Judgment, paragraphs 3,75–79.
In Faherty and Dale v. Shell Australia FLNG [2026] FWC 3329, Commissioner Hunt’s September 1 decision dismisses the two flexible-working applications because the required connection between the requests and the statutory age circumstance was not established. The Commission’s jurisdiction was not enlivened. Its discussion of a possible future time-limited arrangement is conditional, not an order requiring Shell to implement one. Subsequent appeals or orders have not been checked. Decision, paragraphs 61–62,85–95.
The recovered roster case, Gareth Jackson v. Shell Australia FLNG [2026] FWC 2339, answers the agreed enterprise-agreement question in Shell’s favour. The employer can require a different swing to implement a shift-panel change subject to discussion and reasonable notice, the 40/60 roster principle and no financial disadvantage. It is not an unconditional authority to change rosters or a finding of underpayment. June 24 decision, paragraphs 31–39.
Shell also succeeded in the tax valuation dispute Shell Energy Holdings Australia v. Commissioner of Taxation [2026] FCA 577. Jackman J found the amended assessments excessive and held that the Commissioner’s objection decision should be set aside. A subsequent costs judgment orders party-and-party costs before 11 am on February 9, 2026 and indemnity costs thereafter. These are decisions favourable to Shell, and belong in a balanced account alongside claims brought against it. Later appeal records have not been checked. May 11 judgment, paragraphs 105–107; July 7 costs orders.
These Australian decisions are separate from the U.S. counts and reconcile cases identified in the earlier Australian litigation watch. This section does not represent all Australian Shell litigation. Later proceedings not checked: the decisions described above have been reviewed, but subsequent appeals, orders or current court/tribunal files have not been checked. Their reported holdings should not be read as confirmation of present case status.
Reported leads requiring further verification
The following items are included as attributed research leads. The labels identify precisely what remains unverified; none is presented as a finding of wrongdoing.
- AWU v. Shell Australia FLNG, M93/2026 — not independently verified in this review. The earlier published article reported a Western Australian Industrial Magistrates Court pre-trial conference scheduled for October 2, 2026. The relevant historical listing has not been recovered for this review; pleadings, the conference outcome and current status remain unverified.
- AWU v. Shell Australia FLNG, M115/2026 — not independently verified in this review. The earlier article reported a separate pre-trial conference scheduled for October 8, 2026. The relevant historical listing has not been recovered; pleadings, the conference outcome and current status remain unverified. Absence from a later hearing list would not establish closure. Earlier report identifying both leads; official hearing-list page.
- Shell’s Woodside/Paladin indemnity dispute — issuer disclosure verified; court record and current status not independently verified. Repsol Upstream’s accounts describe Shell Australia proceedings against Woodside and Paladin in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. That establishes what the issuer disclosed, not the truth of contested claims or a court finding. The relationship to a separately reported 2026 claim has not been verified, and the reported amounts have not been combined. Repsol Upstream accounts, note 14.2, printed page 41.
Selected source table
| Case | Verified point and limit | Primary source |
|---|---|---|
| People of Michigan v. BP W.D. Michigan 1:26-cv-00254 |
Federal antitrust claim dismissed with prejudice; state claim without prejudice. Opinion 46. | Court record |
| Sheikh v. Shell USA S.D. Texas 4:23-cv-02576 |
Partial summary judgment; timely disputes remained; trial reset. Opinion 67 and entries 72/125. | Court record |
| Kennedy v. Exxon Mobil W.D. Washington 2:25-cv-02378 |
Recorded stay not lifted in retrieved report. Entries 76–77. | Court record |
| Leonetti v. Equilon Enterprises E.D. New York 2:26-cv-01725 |
Anticipated discontinuance; actual discontinuance not identified. September 28 order. | Court record |
| Hutt v. Shell PLC E.D. Texas 6:26-cv-00376 |
Venue transfer denied; allegations undecided. Entry 13. | Court record |
| Hoff D. Conn.3:24-cv-00206 |
All Shell claims dismissed with prejudice. Text 389. | Court record |
| Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell Oil Products US D. Rhode Island 1:17-cv-00396 |
Procedural and expert rulings; no final liability judgment identified. | Court record |
| Harmon S.D. Tex.3:20-cv-00021 |
Trial completed; proposed findings are submissions; no post-trial judgment identified. | Court record |
| Southeast Keathley S.D. Tex.4:26-cv-05530 |
Financial-interest disclosure, not named-parent defendant. Disclosure 8. | Court record |
| North Sea Brent master S.D.N.Y.1:13-md-02475 |
Closed master; appellate affirmance and mandate. Entries 454–457. | Court record |
| Jiffy Lube text spam master S.D.Cal.3:11-md-02261 |
2013 settlement judgment dismisses seven actions with prejudice; no admission/finding of wrongdoing. Judgment 97. | Court record |
| Reorganized FLI Nevada transferee D. Nevada 2:05-cv-01331 |
Individual Coral/Shell-successor claims dismissed with prejudice, separately from the 2017 class settlement. Order 258 pp 1–2. | Court record 1; Court record 2 |
| Brewster New York transferee S.D. New York 1:13-cv-07247; originD.Mass.1:13-cv-11695 |
Shared 2014 order dismisses listed Shell settling entities in four cases; current member docket closed. Order 53 / shared Hinesburg 70. | Court record |
| Rhode Island MTBE district case D. Rhode Island 1:16-cv-00495 |
Federal dismissal without prejudice after denied transfer request; later state outcome not established. March 27, 2017 text order. | Court record |
| Quinlan / Queensland | Limited disclosure ruling; expanded privilege challenge adjourned, no underlying liability judgment. QSC 115 paras 3,75–79. | Primary decision |
| Faherty/Dale / FWC | Flexibility applications dismissed on jurisdictional requirements; conditional discussion not an order granting flexibility. FWC 3329 paras 85–95. | Primary decision |
| Jackson / FWC | Roster interpretation favours Shell subject to discussion/notice,40/60 principle and no financial disadvantage. FWC 2339 paras 31–39. | Primary decision |
| SEHAL tax / Federal Court | Tax valuation judgment favours Shell; later costs order separately reviewed. FCA 577 paras 105–107 and FCA 882 orders 1(a)–(b). | Primary decision |
Scope and method
This is a targeted review of the three supplied party-name exports and selected related primary records. It is not a comprehensive list of Shell litigation in the United States or worldwide. The Australian section covers the recovered watch items described here; the complete earlier international compilation was not recovered, and this article does not claim to reproduce it. Searches depend on entity names, indexed roles, court coverage and the export date. Court/case deduplication removes repeated rows but does not resolve every appeal, transfer or related-action overlap. A blank closing date is a research lead, not proof of activity. A closed case may have an appeal; a continuing case may no longer contain a claim against Shell.
Docket entries report procedural events. Complaints and briefs contain allegations or arguments; proposed findings are not adopted findings. Jurisdictional dismissals, merits dismissals, stays, settlements and party terminations have different effects. PACER citations link to the general PACER Case Locator, not directly to the cited case or document. Readers must sign in with their own account and search using the case name, court and case number or other citation details given here. PACER searches and document retrieval may incur charges. The link change does not update the research findings or their verification dates. Account details, credentials, receipts and sealed or confidential material are excluded from this article and the research outputs. Remaining verification gaps are retained in the register rather than filled by inference.
Site-wide Disclaimer Also Applies.
*This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan - more information here. There is also a Wikipedia segment, the Shell DPA Files, "Shell and the Spies", the Shell Leaks files, the Independent Shell Archive, as well as books written and published by John Donovan - Kindle eBooks. Timeline of the Donovan Shell Feud. Toxic History of Royal Dutch Shell Group. Shell and the Donovans: The Full Media Record — 550+ Articles, 110 Books, 40 Years. *All conjured up by internet wizz, Nick Gill.
