Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment v. Caulk

• Decision Date: 13 November 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97CA0921,97CA0921
• Citation: 969 P.2d 804
• Parties: 98 CJ C.A.R. 5727 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Radiation Control Division and Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel E. CAULK, Defendant-Appellant. . II
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 804

969 P.2d 804

98 CJ C.A.R. 5727

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Radiation Control Division and Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel E. CAULK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97CA0921.

Colorado Court of Appeals,

Div. II.

Nov. 13, 1998.

Field & Associates, Marci S. Gray, Denver, Colorado; Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Martha Phillips Allbright, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Richard A. Westfall, Solicitor General, David Kreutzer, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellees

Burns, Figa & Will, P.C., J. Kemper Will, David J. Richman, Englewood, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant

Opinion by Judge VOGT.

Defendant, Daniel E. Caulk, appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to set aside the default judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Radiation Control Division and Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions.

Defendant was the president of Ramp Industries, Inc. (Ramp), a company formerly in the business of recycling radioactive materials and hazardous waste. In November 1993, plaintiff filed a complaint for injunctive relief and civil penalties against defendant and Ramp, alleging violations of state hazardous waste and radiation control laws. Defendant and Ramp did not file an answer, but did stipulate to the entry of preliminary injunctions which enjoined Ramp from receiving any hazardous wastes or radioactive materials until it complied with applicable laws, regulations, and orders.

Plaintiff subsequently moved for a contempt citation based on the defendants' noncompliance with the preliminary injunctions, and the court issued a show cause order in response to the motion. In August 1994, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assumed control of the Ramp facility and began cleanup operations. After conferring with defendant, plaintiff filed and served on defendant a "Motion to Vacate Show Cause Hearing and to Set Trial," in which it withdrew its motion for a contempt citation but indicated its intention to pursue its claims for a permanent injunction and civil penalties. It then took the deposition of Ramp's former facility manager and served written discovery, to which neither Ramp nor defendant responded.

In response to court orders directing it to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, plaintiff filed numerous monthly status reports and, in May 1996, moved to amend the complaint. The motion was granted, and an amended complaint was served on defendant and Ramp in June 1996. No answer was filed.

On September 9, 1996, plaintiff filed and served on defendant a motion for entry of default judgment, accompanied by over fifty pages of supporting documentation. Three days later, the district court granted the motion and entered an order for permanent injunctive relief and for damages, including civil penalties in excess of $6 million.

On December 31, 1996, defendant filed a motion pursuant to C.R.C.P. 55(c), 60(b)(1), and 60(b)(5) to set aside the default judgment. The trial court denied the motion, finding that defendant had not established excusable neglect and that, although there might be meritorious defenses, "the balance of [the equities] does not favor litigating those defenses at this late date." The court did not address defendant's contention that, at a minimum, it should vacate the penalty assessment and permit him to present mitigating evidence on this issue.

I.

Defendant initially raises various challenges to the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. We note at the outset that defendant did not assert in his motion to set aside the default judgment that the judgment was void under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the trial court did not address subject matter jurisdiction in its order. Nevertheless, because challenges to subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be asserted at any time, Dunton v. Whitewater West Recreation, Ltd., 942 P.2d 1348 (Colo.App.1997), we address his contentions here.

A.

Defendant contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue injunctions pertaining to violations of the Radiation Control Act, § 25-11-101, et seq., C.R.S.1998, because the act does not provide for injunctive relief for licensing violations. We disagree.

Issues of subject matter jurisdiction generally relate to a court's authority to deal with the class of cases in which it renders judgment, not its authority to enter a particular judgment in that class. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Adams, 718 P.2d 508 (Colo.1986); Minto v. Lambert, 870 P.2d 572 (Colo.App.1993); but cf. In re Marriage of Stroud, 631 P.2d 168, 171 (Colo.1981)("In determining whether the court has [subject matter] jurisdiction, reference must be made to the nature of the claim and the relief sought"). Thus, to the extent defendant's contention, properly characterized, is that injunctive relief was not an available remedy here, it does not raise an issue of subject matter jurisdiction. See Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Adams, supra.

Moreover, even if we were to accept defendant's argument that this contention goes to subject matter jurisdiction, he would not be entitled to any relief on this basis. Under the Radiation Control Act, the CDPHE may apply to the district court for an order enjoining acts or practices which violate part 1 of the act "and all rules, regulations and orders issued under this part 1." Section 25-11-106, C.R.S.1998. Part 1 of the act includes provisions addressing violations of license conditions or of orders relating thereto. See § 25-11-107(5), C.R.S.1998.

The trial court thus had authority to enter injunctive relief on plaintiff's claims alleging violations of license conditions. To the extent defendant claims that plaintiff did not follow the procedural requirements for obtaining injunctive relief under § 25-11-107(5), such noncompliance would operate as a defense on the merits but would not affect the court's subject matter jurisdiction.

B.

Defendant also contends that plaintiff lacked standing to assert a claim brought under the Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact (Compact), § 24-60-2201, et seq., C.R.S.1998, because such claims may be brought only by the Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste Board (Board). Again, we address this contention because it goes to the court's subject matter jurisdiction. See Peters v. Smuggler-Durant Mining Corp., 910 P.2d 34 (Colo.App.1995)(lack of standing is a jurisdictional issue and may be raised at any time), aff'd, 930 P.2d 575 (Colo.1997). However, we do not agree that plaintiff was without standing to bring this claim.

To determine whether a plaintiff has standing, a court must inquire whether the plaintiff has suffered injury in fact to a legally protected interest as contemplated by statutory or constitutional provisions. Wimberly v. Ettenberg, 194 Colo. 163, 570 P.2d 535 (1977).

The Compact is a multi-state agreement which provides that each state is responsible for the management of low-level radioactive waste generated within its borders. The CDPHE is the agency responsible for administration of the Compact on behalf of Colorado, except as otherwise provided in the Compact. Section 24-60-2205, C.R.S.1998.

Articles 6 and 7 of § 24-60-2202, C.R.S.1998, set forth the powers and duties of the Board. Such powers include enjoining violations of the Compact. See § 24-60-2202 Article 7(5), C.R.S.1998. However, the Compact does not make the Board's enforcement power exclusive. Moreover, another section of the Compact, § 24-60-2202 Article 6(O)(14), C.R.S.1998, provides for intervention by the Board in "any administrative or judicial proceeding involving low-level waste." In our view, this provision contemplates the institution, by entities other than the Board, of judicial proceedings that include allegations of activities violative of Compact provisions relating to low-level radioactive waste.

Plaintiff's fourth claim for relief, brought under the Compact, asserted that Ramp had violated the Compact by failing to obtain written approval from either the Board or the CDPHE prior to receiving two containers of a low-level radioactive waste at its Denver facility. We conclude that, as part of its responsibility to administer the Compact, the CDPHE had standing to assert this claim, and the trial court thus had jurisdiction to enter the relief requested for the violation.

C.

Defendant's other substantive objections to the default judgment do not go to the court's jurisdiction, but instead raise, at most, potential defenses to plaintiff's claims. For example, defendant argues that applicable statutes of limitations deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over certain claims. However, a statute of limitations limits the time in which an action may be brought, but does not deprive a court of jurisdiction. In re Estate of Kubby, 929 P.2d 55 (Colo.App.1996).

In addition, defendant initially argues that the court "lacked personal jurisdiction" over him. He then acknowledges in his reply brief that "the trial court had personal jurisdiction of Mr. Caulk," but contends that there was no basis for the imposition of personal liability on him. However, defenses to personal liability go to the merits of the action. They do not deprive the court of jurisdiction.

Defendant also challenges the default judgment on the bases that it conflicts with federal law, that it includes an improper interest component, and that, as to one claim, plaintiff should have been represented by a county or district attorney rather than the attorney general. As before, however, these contentions, even if correct, do not relate to the court's subject matter jurisdiction.

In sum, defendant has not...