Strudley v. Antero Res. Corp.
Decision Date | 03 July 2013 |
Docket Number | Court of Appeals No. 12CA1251 |
Citation | 350 P.3d 874,2013 COA 106 |
Parties | William G. STRUDLEY and Beth E. Strudley, individually and as the parents and natural guardians of William Strudley and Charles Strudley, both minors, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, Antero Resources Piceance Corporation, Calfrac Well Services Corporation, and Frontier Drilling, LLC, Defendants–Appellees. |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Thomas | Greenshaft, LLP, Peter W. Thomas, Aspen, Colorado; Frascona, Joiner, Goodman and Greenstein, P.C., Corey T. Zurbuch, Boulder, Colorado; Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Assoc., LLP, Marc Jay Bern, Tate J. Kunkle, New York, New York, for Plaintiffs–Appellants
Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Daniel J. Dunn, Andrew C. Lillie, David A. DeMarco, Denver, Colorado; Vinson & Elkins LLP, Robert M. Schick, James D. Thompson, III, Houston, Texas, for Defendants–Appellees Antero Resources Corporation and Antero Resources Piceance Corporation
Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, Gail L. Wurtzler, Adam S. Cohen, Shannon Wells Stevenson, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant–Appellee Calfrac Well Services Corporation
Burns Figa & Will, P.C., Matthew B. Dillman, Sarah M. Shechter, Greenwood Village, Colorado, for Defendant–Appellee Frontier Drilling LLC
¶ 1 In this toxic-tort case, plaintiffs, William G. Strudley and Beth E. Strudley, individually and as the parents and guardians of William Strudley and Charles Strudley (collectively “the Strudleys”), appeal the trial court's orders requiring them to present prima facie evidence to support their claims prior to the initiation of full discovery, and dismissing their claims with prejudice for not meeting this burden.
¶ 2 This case presents an issue of first impression in Colorado regarding whether a trial court in a toxic tort case can enter an order requiring plaintiffs to present prima facie evidence supporting their claims after initial disclosures, but before other discovery commences, or risk having their case dismissed. We conclude that such orders are prohibited under Colorado law. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's orders and remand the case to the trial court.
¶ 3 The Strudleys sued defendants, Antero Resources Corporation, Antero Resources Piceance Corporation, Calfrac Well Services Corp., and Frontier Drilling LLC (collectively “the companies”), claiming negligence, negligence per se, nuisance, strict liability, and trespass, related to physical and property injuries allegedly caused by the companies' natural gas drilling operations within close proximity to their home. The Strudleys also requested the establishment of a medical monitoring trust.
¶ 4 The Strudleys' complaint alleged that the companies committed tortious acts when pollutants from their drilling activities at three well sites contaminated the air, water, and ground near and around their home, and that those acts caused property damage and “personal and physical injuries, known and unknown.” The complaint enumerated certain chemicals and contaminants that allegedly polluted the Strudleys' property, including hydrogen sulfide, hexane, n-heptane, toluene, propane, isobutene, n-butane, isopentane, n-pentane, and other pollutants. However, it did not identify which of these pollutants caused the alleged injuries.
¶ 5 The Strudleys moved out of their house in January 2011. According to the complaint, they “were forced to flee and abandon their home because of the toxic and hazardous contamination caused by [the companies].” An affidavit submitted by William G. Strudley in opposition to the companies' summary judgment motion1 stated that while they were still living in their home, the Strudleys suffered “a myriad of symptoms from the air contamination, including but not limited to burning eyes and throat, skin rashes, constant headaches, nausea, terrible bouts of non-stop coughing and continual bloody noses.” The affidavit further stated that after the Strudleys moved to a different residence, these symptoms subsided. Finally, the affidavit stated that the Strudleys' well water was visibly polluted and emitted a bad odor. A study conducted on the well water, one year after the Strudleys moved away, indicated pollutants were present in the well water above recommended levels.
¶ 6 The parties filed initial disclosures pursuant to C.R.C.P. 26. However, shortly thereafter, the companies moved for a modified case management order pursuant to C.R.C.P. 16(c). Specifically, the companies requested the trial court to enter an order similar to that in Lore v. Lone Pine Corp., 1986 WL 637507 (N.J.Super. Ct. Law Div. Nov. 18, 1986) (unpublished opinion), which required the Strudleys to present prima facie evidence to support their claims before full discovery could commence.2 In connection with their motion, the companies submitted evidence that they alleged contradicted the Strudleys' claims, including a report conducted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) that concluded that there were “no indications of any oil & gas related impacts to [the Strudleys'] well,” based on a water sample taken on November 30, 2010. The companies further asserted that a Lone Pine order was necessary because the case was complex and would “entail significant discovery at substantial cost to the parties.”
¶ 7 Over the Strudleys' objection, the trial court granted the companies' request and issued a modified case management order requiring the Strudleys to provide, within 105 days:
¶ 9 The Strudleys provided no expert opinion that concluded that the harm to their property or their physical injuries were directly caused by the companies' conduct. Nor did the Strudleys present expert evidence documenting all of their physical injuries through medical examination.
¶ 10 Based on the Strudleys' submissions, the companies moved to dismiss the Strudleys' claims pursuant to C.R.C.P. 37, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The Strudleys responded, asserting that their evidentiary submissions complied with the trial court's Lone Pine order, and therefore, dismissal under C.R.C.P. 37 was not appropriate. They further asserted that issues of material fact existed that precluded a grant of summary judgment.
¶ 11 The trial court dismissed all of the Strudleys' claims with prejudice, finding that the Strudleys failed to prove a prima facie case, specifically in relation to causation. The court did not cite any rule of civil procedure under which it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Payne, Court of Appeals No. 18CA0283
...rule").¶34 While our supreme court is free to adopt a rule similar to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29.1, it has not done so.6 See Strudley v. Antero Res. Corp. , 2013 COA 106, ¶ 34, 350 P.3d 874 (recognizing that if our supreme court had "intended to adopt a standard similar to that in the federal rule......
-
Antero Res. Corp. v. Strudley
...appeals reversed the trial court's Lone Pine order along with the order of dismissal and reinstated the Strudleys' claims. Strudley v. Antero Res. Corp., 2013 COA 106, ¶ 42, ––– P.3d ––––. We granted certiorari to resolve whether our Rules of Civil Procedure authorize the use of Lone Pine o......
-
Nesbitt v. Scott
...statutes and rules of civil procedure de novo. See MDC Holdings, Inc. v. Town of Parker , 223 P.3d 710, 717 (Colo. 2010) ; Strudley v. Antero Res. Corp. , 2013 COA 106, ¶ 13, 350 P.3d 874, aff’d , 2015 CO 26, 347 P.3d 149. When interpreting statutes, we "give effect to every word and render......
-
Rule 26 GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING DISCOVERY; DUTY OF DISCLOSURE.
...protect against meritless claims, and, therefore, a Lone Pine order was not required solely on that basis. Strudley v. Antero Res. Corp., 2013 COA 106, 350 P.3d 874, aff'd, 2015 CO 26, 347 P.3d 149. Fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination did not apply to evidence of insurance ......
-
Rule 34 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS AND ENTRY UPON LAND FOR INSPECTION AND OTHER PURPOSES.
...protect against meritless claims, and, therefore, a Lone Pine order was not required solely on that basis. Strudley v. Antero Res. Corp., 2013 COA 106, 350 P.3d 874, aff'd, 2015 CO 26, 347 P.3d 149. A party seeking a subpoena duces tecum requiring production of documents by the other party ......
-
Rule 16 CASE MANAGEMENT AND TRIAL MANAGEMENT.
...protect against meritless claims, and, therefore, a Lone Pine order was not required solely on that basis. Strudley v. Antero Res. Corp., 2013 COA 106, 350 P.3d 874, aff'd, 2015 CO 26, 347 P.3d 149. Applied in In re Estate of Gardner, 31 Colo. App. 361, 505 P.2d 50 (1972); Clark v. District......
-
LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN 2013 AFFECTING THE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
...Colorado's Voter-Approved Fracking Bans Land in Court, Denv. Bus. J., Dec. 4. 2013 (Energy, Inc.). [84] 2013 CO 36, 303 P.3d 1187. [85] 2013 COA 106, 2013 WL 3427901. [86] 937 F.Supp2d 1328 (D. Colo. 2013). [87] 2013 COA 72, 2013 WL 1908965. [88] 2013 CO 67, 2013 WL 6172292. [89] Wallace B.......