
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Colorado District Court Puts Brakes on Denver Dam Work Pending Environmental Review
- Tenth Circuit Applies Statute of Limitations That Is “Closest Fit” in CERCLA Action, Overrules Earlier Precedent
- New Jersey Weighs in on State Climate Tort Claims
- First Circuit Holds that Smelling Vehicle Exhaust Constitutes Injury-in-Fact under Clean Air Act
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Vacatur of Some Oil and Gas Leases
Topics
- NJDEP
- Pollutants
- Connecticut
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Internal Investigation
- Evidence
- Citizens Suit
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Environmental Covenants
- Federal Circuit
- National Contingency Plan
- Apportionment
- Divisibility
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Fees
- Commonwealth Court
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- New Mexico
- Tribal Lands
- Gold King Mine
- Utah
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Chevron Deference
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Property Damage
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Clean Streams Law
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Tax assessment
- Damages
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Electric
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- Inspection
- New York
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- HAPs
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Natural Gas
- Fifth Amendment
- Takings Clause
- Flooding
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Water
- Illinois
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Montana
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Rulemaking
- Equity
- CISWI
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- EPA
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- Delay Notice
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Procedure
- Standing
- NPDES
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Certification
- Contamination
- Louisiana
- Dukes
- CLE
- Discovery
- Work Product
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Decisions of Note
- Expert Witness
- Cost Recovery
- CERCLA
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Real Estate
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Class Actions
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Trespass
- Farming
- Odors
- Nuisance
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Railroad
- Cancer
- Emissions
- Waste
- Air
- Combustion
- RCRA
- Speaking Engagements
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Permits
- Title V
- Superfund
- Cleanup
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Statute of Repose
- Due Process
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Mineral Rights
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Oil and Gas
- Leases
- Exploration
- Royalties
- Drilling
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
In May, we reported on the case of Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., No. 2011 CV 2218 (Denver Co. Dist. Court May 9, 2012), in which a state trial court issued a Lone Pine order requiring the plaintiffs to show, prior to the initiation of discovery, that there was a prima facie basis for associating their personal injury claims with the defendants’ hydraulic fracturing activities. The court subsequently dismissed the case when the plaintiffs failed, in the court's view, to meet this initial burden. The dismissal was appealed and in Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., Court of Appeals No. 12CA1251 (Co. Ct. Appeals, 1st Div., July 3, 2013), reversed.
The Court of Appeals opened its decision with a bold pronouncement, that Colorado law flatly prohibits the entry of Lone Pine orders. Its conclusion, described in a thorough opinion, was based on both existing case law and on an analysis of Colorado's procedural rules.
First, the Court noted that two prior Colorado Supreme Court cases, both involving commercial torts, rejected entry of orders precluding discovery without a prima facie showing because such a requirement "contradicts the broader policy of the [state's procedural] rules that all conflicts should be resolved in favor of discovery." Slip Op., quoting Curtis, Inc. v. Dist. Court, 186 Colo. 226, 233 (1974).
Second, the Court rejected the defendants' claims that recent changes to the state's rules of civil procedure overruled these cases. In particular, the Court noted that while Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 16, often relied upon by courts issuing Lone Pine orders, expressly permits federal courts to "adopt[] special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions," Colorado's analogous rule contains no similar language. Indeed, since Colorado's rules are patterned after the federal rules, the omission of this language evidenced, according to the Court, "an intent to grant less discretion to trial courts than that afforded by the federal rules."
Finally, the Court rejected the issuance of Lone Pine orders on policy grounds, finding that existing procedures such as bringing motions to dismiss or for summary judgment can serve the same stated purpose of challenging claims that were vague or lacked evidence of causation. This was especially true with respect to the Strudley's case, as it involved only four people from one family as plaintiffs and alleged contamination to a single piece of property, and thus was not nearly as complex as a mass tort action which might involve hundreds of plaintiffs and properties.
In summary, what was initially a victory for defendants in Colorado toxic tort cases seems to have become a significant defeat. Had the trial court been faced with a much larger or more complex case, it is possible that the Colorado Court of Appeals would have issued a more nuanced ruling, upholding the issuance of Lone Pine orders in such cases while rejecting them for smaller suits. Instead, defendants are now faced with an appellate decision that quite plainly holds that, as a matter of law, Lone Pine orders are impermissible under Colorado law.