People v. Meagher

Decision Date15 June 2020
Docket NumberSupreme Court Case No. 19SA170
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, EX REL. Kevin G. REIN, State Engineer, and Craig W. Cotten, Division Engineer for Water Division 3, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Nick MEAGHER, an individual, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Andrew Nicewicz, Assistant Attorney General, Philip E. Lopez, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant: S.W. Atencio and Associates, P.C., Stephane W. Atencio, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae The Rio Grande Water Conservation District: Hill & Robbins, P.C., David W. Robbins, Peter J. Ampe, Matthew A. Montgomery, Denver, Colorado

En Banc

JUSTICE GABRIEL delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Kevin G. Rein, the State Engineer, and Craig W. Cotten, the Division Engineer for Water Division 3 (the "Engineers"), brought claims against Nick Meagher for injunctive relief, civil penalties, and costs, arising from Meagher's failure to submit Form 6.1—Water Use Data Submittal Form, as required by Rule 6.1 of the Rules Governing the Measurement of Ground Water Diversions Located in Water Division No. 3, The Rio Grande Basin (the "Measurement Rules"). Meagher now appeals the water court's orders denying his motion to dismiss the Engineers’ claims and granting the Engineers summary judgment on those claims. He contends that the court erred in (1) denying his motion to dismiss because the Engineers’ claims were mooted by his ultimate submission of Form 6.1; (2) granting summary judgment for the Engineers based on an erroneous interpretation of Rule 6.1 and section 37-92-503, C.R.S. (2019), and notwithstanding the existence of genuine issues of material fact as to his culpable mental state and the amount of the civil penalties to be imposed; (3) enjoining future violations of Rule 6.1; and (4) awarding costs and fees to the Engineers.

¶2 We reject each of these contentions in turn. First, we conclude that the water court did not err in denying Meagher's motion to dismiss because the Engineers’ claims were not mooted by Meagher's belated submission of Form 6.1. Second, we conclude that the water court correctly determined that neither Rule 6.1 nor the pertinent provisions of section 37-92-503 required the Engineers to prove that Meagher had a culpable mental state. Accordingly, Meagher's allegation that he was not at fault for violating Rule 6.1 did not establish a genuine issue of material fact so as to preclude the entry of summary judgment for the Engineers. Third, we conclude that the injunction entered by the water court was appropriate because (1) the court was not required to comply with the requirements of C.R.C.P. 65, given that section 37-92-503 provides special statutory procedures for issuing injunctions, and (2) the injunction conformed to Colorado standards for enjoining further violations of the Measurement Rules. Finally, we conclude that the water court properly awarded the Engineers costs and fees under subsection 37-92-503(6)(e), and therefore we need not address whether costs and fees could also have been awarded under subsection 37-92-503(1)(b).

¶3 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the water court, conclude that the Engineers are entitled to the reasonable attorney fees that they incurred on appeal, and remand this case to allow the water court to determine the amount of fees to be awarded.

I. Facts and Procedural History

¶4 The State Engineer adopted the Measurement Rules in 2005, and the Division 3 Water Court approved them in 2006. Rule 6.1 of these Rules requires certain well owners to report in writing, on an annual basis, the amounts of water pumped from their wells in a given irrigation year.

¶5 Meagher owns and pumps water from three tributary groundwater wells located in Conejos County, and he does not dispute that the wells are subject to the Measurement Rules. Before the events leading to this case, the Engineers had issued multiple orders to Meagher to compel compliance with the Measurement Rules and with conditions of his well permits and decrees, including orders to comply with Rule 6.1.

¶6 As pertinent here, in October 2017, the Engineers sent Meagher Form 6.1, so that he could submit his report of water pumped from his wells, as required by Rule 6.1. The form gave Meagher a deadline of December 1, 2017 to submit the required reports. When Meagher did not comply, the Division Engineer issued, pursuant to section 37-92-502, C.R.S. (2019), a "Notice of Violation and Order to Comply with Rules Governing Measurement of Ground Water Diversions" ("Order"). This Order required Meagher to complete and submit Form 6.1 within ten days. Again, Meagher did not comply. Accordingly, on March 16, 2018, the Engineers filed a complaint in the water court. In this complaint, the Engineers sought an injunction to prevent Meagher from further violating the Measurement Rules and the Order, civil penalties of up to five hundred dollars for each violation, and costs, including reasonable attorney fees. Meagher ultimately completed and submitted Form 6.1 on April 4, 2018, which was ninety-nine days after the deadline set by the Order.

¶7 Thereafter, Meagher filed a motion to dismiss the Engineers’ complaint. In this motion, he argued that his belated compliance with the Order rendered the Engineers’ claims moot. The water court denied this motion, concluding that Meagher's eventual compliance with the Order did not render moot either the Engineers’ claim for an injunction against further violations or their demand for civil penalties.

¶8 Meagher then filed an answer and cross-claim in which he alleged that he had reasonably relied on the Engineers’ designation of certified well testers. Specifically, he asserted that although he had hired several certified well testers to submit the required reports, through no fault of his own, the well testers had failed to do so.

¶9 The Engineers subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law permanently enjoining Meagher from further violating Rule 6.1 and ordering him to pay civil penalties, fees, and costs. The court granted this motion, concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact because, among other things, Meagher did not dispute that he had failed to comply on a timely basis with the applicable provisions of section 37-92-503, the Measurement Rules, and the Order. The court thus entered an injunction that provided, "Pursuant to C.R.S. § 37-92-503(6)(e) Mr. Meagher is permanently enjoined from further violations of Rule 6.1 of the Measurement Rules, and he is ordered to complete and submit Form 6.1—Water Use Data Form, for the Wells, each year, no later than December 1st." The court also ordered Meagher to pay a total of $1,500 in civil penalties ($500 for each of his wells), as well as the Engineers’ costs of bringing this proceeding, including their reasonable attorney fees.

¶10 Meagher now appeals the water court's denial of his motion to dismiss and its grant of summary judgment in the Engineers’ favor.

II. Analysis

¶11 We begin by considering whether the water court erred in rejecting Meagher's assertion that his belated compliance with the Measurement Rules mooted the Engineers’ claims. Perceiving no error, we proceed to consider whether either Rule 6.1 or section 37-92-503 required the Engineers to prove that Meagher had a culpable mental state and, if so, whether genuine issues of material fact precluded the entry of summary judgment here. We conclude that neither the statute nor the rule requires any showing of a culpable mental state and that the water court properly entered summary judgment for the Engineers. Next, we address and reject Meagher's challenges to the injunction issued against him. Last, we consider whether the Engineers are entitled to an award of the costs and reasonable attorney fees that they incurred both in the water court and on appeal, and we conclude that they are.

A. Meagher's Motion to Dismiss

¶12 Meagher first contends that the water court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the Engineers’ claims against him because (1) his belated submission of the requisite form mooted the Engineers’ claim for injunctive relief and (2) all of the Engineers’ remaining claims were dependent on the viability of the claim for injunctive relief. Because we view Meagher's argument as part and parcel of his appeal of the grant of injunctive relief (even though he frames his argument as an appeal of the denial of his motion to dismiss), we will presume that this issue is properly before us. Nonetheless, we are unpersuaded by Meagher's contention.

¶13 We review de novo a district court's decision on a C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss. N.M. v. Trujillo , 2017 CO 79, ¶ 18, 397 P.3d 370, 373. We have adopted a "plausibility" standard for assessing such motions. Id. at ¶ 20, 397 P.3d at 373. Under this standard, in order to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege a plausible claim for relief. Id.

¶14 We also review de novo the question of whether a case is moot. See People in Interest of C.G. , 2015 COA 106, ¶ 11, 410 P.3d 596, 599. "A case is moot when the relief sought, if granted, would have no practical legal effect." State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs v. Stjernholm , 935 P.2d 959, 970 (Colo. 1997). If a case is moot, a court will decline to render an opinion on its merits. Id. ¶15 Here, pursuant to, among other provisions, subsection 37-92-503(6)(e), the Engineers sought injunctive relief. Subsection 37-92-503(6)(e) provides, in pertinent part:

The state engineer and the particular division engineer in the name of the people of the state of Colorado, through the attorney general, shall apply to the water judge of the particular division to recover the civil penalties specified in paragra
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Nelson v. Encompass Pahs Rehab. Hosp., LLC
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • January 9, 2023
    ...for reconsideration before seeking an order to show cause. See C.A.R. 21 ; see also People ex rel. Rein v. Meagher, 2020 CO 56, ¶ 22, 465 P.3d 554, 560 ("[W]e do not add words to or subtract words from a statute."); People v. G.S., 2018 CO 31, ¶ 32, 416 P.3d 905, 913 ("We apply ‘[t]he stand......
  • State v. 5 Star Feedlot, Inc.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • May 3, 2021
    ...of Statutory Interpretation ¶18 We review de novo an order granting summary judgment. People ex rel. Rein v. Meagher, 2020 CO 56, ¶ 19, 465 P.3d 554, 559. Hence, when reviewing such an order, we apply the same legal standard as the district court. City of Longmont v. Colo. Oil & Gas Ass'n, ......
  • Nelson v. Encompass PAHS Rehab. Hosp.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • January 9, 2023
    ...for reconsideration before seeking an order to show cause. See C.A.R. 21; see also People ex rel. Rein v. Meagher, 2020 CO 56, ¶ 22, 465 P.3d 554, 560 ("[W]e do not add words to or subtract words from statute."); People v. G.S., 2018 CO 31, ¶ 32, 416 P.3d 905, 913 ("We apply '[t]he standard......
  • Nieto v. Clark's Mkt., Inc.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • June 14, 2021
    ...11, 444 P.3d 749, 752 ). "[W]e do not add words to or subtract words from a statute." People ex rel. Rein v. Meagher, 2020 CO 56, ¶ 22, 465 P.3d 554, 560. And where the plain language is unambiguous, we apply the statute as written. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Scholle, 2021 CO 20, ¶ 13, 484 P.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT