
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- District Court Upholds Public Water Supplier’s Tort Claims & Finds Expert Testimony Admissible in Groundwater Contamination Litigation
- Second Circuit Clarifies CERCLA Statute of Limitations in Multi-Phase Cleanups
- Third Circuit Remands 1,4 Dioxane Case to State Court Rejecting the Use of the Federal-Officer Removal Statute
- D.C. Circuit Affirms FERC’s Approval of Pipeline Construction Extension
- Supreme Court Provides Framework for Venue for Clean Air Act Challenges
Topics
- State Implementation Plans
- Venue
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Environmental Justice
- 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
- Successor Liability
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Environmental Covenants
- Federal Circuit
- Divisibility
- National Contingency Plan
- Apportionment
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- Utah
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Tribal Lands
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Chevron Deference
- Endangered Species Act
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Property Damage
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Missouri
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- 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
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Residential
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- New York
- Natural Gas Act
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- HAPs
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Natural Gas
- Takings Clause
- Flooding
- Fifth Amendment
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Insurance Coverage
- Duty to Defend
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Navigability
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- Delay Notice
- Rulemaking
- Equity
- CISWI
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- EPA
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Procedure
- Standing
- NPDES
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Dukes
- Certification
- Contamination
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Discovery
- Work Product
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Decisions of Note
- Expert Witness
- CERCLA
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Cost Recovery
- Real Estate
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Donovan
- Army Corps
- Rapanos
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Trespass
- Farming
- Odors
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- Railroad
- Cancer
- Emissions
- Waste
- Air
- Combustion
- RCRA
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Permits
- Supreme Court
- Superfund
- Cleanup
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Due Process
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Mineral Rights
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Leases
- Exploration
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Oil and Gas
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
We’ve been following the case of Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., No. 2011 CV 2218, since May, 2012, when a Colorado trial court dismissed the action following plaintiffs’ failure to establish, pursuant to a Lone Pine order, a prima facie case showing that the defendant, a natural gas drilling company, was responsible for plaintiffs’ personal injuries. The Lone Pine order required the Strudleys to submit to the Court, before it would allow any discovery, sufficient expert opinions, scientific testing results, and personal medical information to support their claims. In July, 2013, a Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Lone Pine orders were not permitted under Colorado law and thus the plaintiffs could not be shut out of the courthouse at such an early stage.
On April 20, 2015, the Court of Appeal’s decision was affirmed, with one dissenting vote, by the Colorado Supreme Court, which held that “[Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 16] does not provide a trial court with authority to fashion its own summary judgment –like filter and dismiss filter and dismis filter and dismiss claims during the early stages of litigation.” Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp. No. 13SC576, 2015 WL 1813000 (Colo. Apr. 20, 2015). The meat of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision rested on its comparison of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, pursuant to which Lone Pine orders have been issued by federal courts, and Colorado’s rule which was modeled on, but is not identical, to FRCP 16. Notably, Colorado did not adopt those portions of the federal rule which expressly authorize a court to “adopt[] special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protected actions,” and take action to “eliminate frivolous claims or defenses” and “facilitate in other ways the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition” of lawsuits. Rather, Colorado law provides for a form case management order that can only be modified by consent or motion, and then only to alter deadlines, disclosures and motion filing deadlines. The Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s more equitable arguments that the spirit and intent of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, as evidenced by the comments, encourage early dismissal of frivolous claims (presumably such as the one filed by the Strudleys). A stated goal is not the same as granting authority to take unauthorized actions in furtherance of the goal, the Court held.
The Court also rejected the validity of the dismissal under other civil procedure rules, such as those which allow sanctions for frivolous filings or dismissal for a failure to state a claim. As the Court noted, challenges to the factual sufficiency of a claim may be made by summary judgment motion with its attendance procedural safeguards or following a failure by a plaintiff to submit to factual or expert discovery. Finally, the Court reviewed the existing case law relying on and interpreting the state’s Rule 16 and found nothing in those cases to support the issuance of a Lone Pine order.