throbber
Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 21
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
`
`
`Multidistrict Litigation Action No. 01:18—md—2824-WJ
`
`IN RE GOLD KING MINE RELEASE IN SAN
`JUAN COUNTY, COLORADO, ON AUGUST 5,
`2015.
`
`(This MOTION relates to all cases.)
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`MOTION OF DEFENDANT HARRISON WESTERN CONSTRUCTION
`CORPORATION TO DISMISS STATE OF UTAH AND
`ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, LLC’S CLAIMS
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`Defendant Harrison Western Construction Corporation (“Harrison Western”)
`
`
`
`moves now to dismiss the claims of plaintiff State of Utah (“Utah”) and cross-
`
`claimant/third party plaintiff Environmental Restoration, LLC (“ER”) pursuant to
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2)). In support thereof,
`
`Harrison Western states as follows:
`
`The underlying actions stem from the Gold King Mine spill near Silverton,
`
`Colorado, on August 5, 2015. (EXHIBIT A - State of Utah First Amended Complaint
`
`at ¶¶ 1, 60-62). The spill involved approximately 3,000,000 gallons of contaminated
`
`water and toxic waste, which traveled into nearby Cement Creek, into the Animas
`
`River, into the San Juan River and, finally, into Lake Powell. (Id. at ¶ 61). Following
`
`the spill and in response to certain “environmental, economic and other damage” (id.
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 21
`
`at ¶ 62), Utah brought various statutory and common law tort claims against Harrison
`
`Western and others (id. at ¶¶ 64-129) demanding declaratory, monetary and injunctive
`
`relief.1 (Id. at PRAYER FOR RELIEF).
`
`ER is a defendant in each of the lawsuits that comprise the MDL, except the
`
`action commences by Utah.2 ER has asserted claims against Harrison Western in each
`
`case of the MDL for contribution on all claims asserted against ER in the MDL. (ER
`
`Crossclaim Against Harrison Western [MDL DOC. 218-1 at 31-34]; ER Third-Party
`
`Complaint Against Harrison Western [MDL DOC. 214-1 at 43-46]; ER Third-Party
`
`Complaint Against Harrison Western [MDL DOC. 213-1 at 48-52]; ER Third-Party
`
`Complaint Against Harrison Western [MDL DOC. 210-1 at 23-24]; ER Third-Party
`
`Complaint Against Harrison Western [MDL DOC. 209-1 at 92-93]).
`
`
`
`
`1Utah has sued Harrison Western Corporation, and Utah served its initial
`
`complaint upon Harrison Western Corporation. (EXHIBIT E – State of Utah Proof
`of Service). Harrison Western Corporation, however, did not perform any work or
`services in connection with the Gold King Mine; Harrison Western Construction
`Corporation did (although it did not perform work on or around the date of the
`subject incident). (EXHIBIT B – Declaration of Christopher A. Hassel at ¶ 7).
`Moreover, and while separate legal entities, both Harrison Western Corporation and
`Harrison Western Construction Corporation maintain the same principal place of
`business in Lakewood, Colorado. (Id. at ¶ 8). Accordingly, Harrison Western
`Construction Corporation has notice of the underlying complaint. (Id. at ¶ 8).
`2Utah and ER recently settled. At present, then, ER is no longer a defendant
`in that action, but remains a cross-claimant by virtue of its cross-claim against HW.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 3 of 21
`
`RELIEF SOUGHT AND GROUNDS THEREFOR
`
`Harrison Western broadly contends it has no liability to Utah or ER because
`
`there is no factual or legal basis for any of the claims directed against it. At this time,
`
`however, Harrison Western contends that New Mexico and Utah courts lack personal
`
`jurisdiction because Harrison Western is a Colorado corporation with a principal place
`
`of business in Colorado and because the claimed damages did not result from any
`
`intentional conduct by Harrison Western expressly aimed at the State of New Mexico
`
`or the State of Utah.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. Harrison Western Is A Colorado Corporation With A
`Principal Place Of Business In Colorado.
`
`
`Harrison Western is an experienced and expert mining services subcontractor.
`
`
`
`(EXHIBIT A at ¶ 12). Harrison Western is a Colorado corporation. (Id. at ¶ 12).
`
`Harrison Western’s principal place of business is in Lakewood, Colorado. (Id. at ¶
`
`12). It has had no other principal place of business. (EXHIBIT B at ¶ 6). Harrison
`
`Western’s headquarters are also in the State of Colorado. (Id. at ¶ 6). It has never
`
`had headquarters outside the State of Colorado. (Id. at ¶ 6).
`
`
`
`All Harrison Western’s executive and administrative functions occur within
`
`the State of Colorado; none have occurred in any other state. (Id. at ¶ 6). All
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 4 of 21
`
`Harrison Western’s corporate officers live and reside in the State of Colorado; none
`
`live or reside elsewhere. (Id. at ¶¶ 1-4).
`
`B. Harrison Western’s Revenue And Work In The Forum
`States.
`
`
`From 2009 through 2019, Harrison Western has generated revenue on projects
`
`
`
`in the State of New Mexico and the State of Utah. However, that revenue has been
`
`limited and has not been more than 10% of Harrison Western’s total revenue over
`
`that time period.
`
`
`
`From 2009 through 2019, Harrison Western worked on the following projects
`
`in New Mexico:
`
`ICP Ochoa Polyhalite Shaft and Slope Study (work
`began in March 2011 and concluded in September
`2011);
`Intrepid Potash East Shaft (work began June 5, 2013
`and concluded September 12, 2013);
`Intrepid Potash - West Mine Main (work began
`November 9, 2015 and concluded October 16,
`2016);
`Intrepid East Mine (work began September 15,
`2015 and concluded December 4, 2016);
`Intrepid Potash - East Production Shaft Guide
`Change Out (work began in May 2018 and
`concluded in June 2018); and,
`ASL Vault (work began in November 2017 and
`concluded March 2018). (EXHIBIT C – Harrison
`Western’s Third Supplemental Responses
`to
`Environmental Restoration, LLC’s
`Special
`Interrogatories, Set One at 3-4).
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 5 of 21
`
`From 2009 through 2019, Harrison Western worked on the following projects
`
`in Utah:
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`Winter Quarters Canyon Ventilation Slope, Skyline
`Mine (work began in May 2011 and concluded in
`February 2013);
`Blackjack Gazex Installation (work began August
`22, 2016 and principal work concluded in January
`2017/warranty work began in October 2019, and
`concluded on October 10, 2019); and,
`Park City Mine Tunnel Reconstruction (work began
`July 1, 2019 and concluded December 31, 2019).
`(Id. at 5-6).
`
`
`From 2009 through the end of 2019, Harrison Western earned revenue on the
`
`
`
`above projects in the State of New Mexico amounting to $2,209,682 and on the
`
`above projects in the State of Utah amounting to $ 9,182,612.35. (Id. at 15).
`
`Comparatively, over the same time period, Harrison Western earned revenue on
`
`projects in the State of Colorado amounting to $74,634,265, revenue on projects in
`
`the State of Kansas amounting to $14,581,773, and revenue on projects in the State
`
`of West Virginia amounting to $11,179,137. (Id. at 14-15).
`
`C. Harrison Western’s Role And Involvement With The Gold
`King Mine.
`
`All the work performed by Harrison Western in connection with the Gold
`
`
`
`
`King Mine was undertaken in Colorado or was intended to be undertaken in
`
`Colorado at the mine. (EXHIBIT B at ¶ 9).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`More specifically, Harrison Western was retained by ER in August 2014 to
`
`assist in the reopening of the Gold King Mine. (EXHIBIT D – Declaration of Robert
`
`Heeter at ¶ 7). Toward that end, Harrison Western mobilized at the mine the following
`
`month (Id. at ¶¶ 9-10), at which time it observed others excavating near the mine’s
`
`adit. (Id. at ¶ 10). Harrison Western noticed seepage in the face of the excavation in
`
`a quantity that it believed could not be safely handled under the existing circumstances.
`
`(Id. at ¶¶ 11-13). Harrison Western recommended that the excavation cease, and it did.
`
`(Id. at ¶ 14).
`
`
`
`With the mine reopening “suspended” (EXHIBIT A at ¶ 41), Harrison Western
`
`returned to suburban Denver, Colorado and prepared a revised construction plan to
`
`reopen the Gold King Mine. (EXHIBIT D at ¶ 17). Harrison Western planned to
`
`return to the Gold King Mine during the week of August 17, 2015. (Id. at ¶ 19).
`
`
`
`Others, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)
`
`and ER, returned to the mine much earlier. (EXHIBIT A at ¶¶ 44-45, 55). According
`
`to Utah, these parties -- “EPA’s On Site Team” -- “created a plan to conduct excavation
`
`activities” at the Gold King Mine on August 4, 2015. (Id. at ¶ 44). However, that plan
`
`-- and the actual excavation of the mine’s adit -- substantially deviated from Harrison
`
`Western’s revised construction plan. (EXHIBIT D at ¶¶ 24-27). Moreover, that plan
`
`-- and the actual excavation of the mine’s adit -- were undertaken in the absence of,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 7 of 21
`
`and without any input from, Harrison Western, “the subcontractor with the experience
`
`and expertise necessary to safely excavate the Gold King Mine adit.” (EXHIBIT A at
`
`¶¶ 44, 55, 85).
`
`
`
`Ultimately, “EPA’s On Site Team” -- not Harrison Western -- “triggered an
`
`uncontrolled blowout at the Gold King Mine, located about five miles north of
`
`Silverton, Colorado (the ‘Blowout’).” (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 44, 55).
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Utah Sues Harrison Western.
`
`On July 31, 2017, Utah sued Harrison Western in connection with the Gold King
`
`Mine spill and amended its Complaint on January 4, 2018 (EXHIBIT A). Utah did so,
`
`advancing the following claims:
`
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`
`cost recovery and other relief under CERCLA;
`declaratory judgment under CERCLA;
`negligence/gross negligence;
`public nuisance;
`violation of Utah’s Water Quality Act; and,
`violation of Utah’s Solid and Hazardous Waste
`Act.(Id. at ¶¶ 64-114).
`
`E.
`
`ER Sues Harrison Western.
`
`On July 1, 2019, ER asserted cross-claims against Harrison Western in the Utah
`
`
`
`
`
`
`action and third-party claims against Harrison Western in the other four cases
`
`comprising the MDL. ER advanced the following claims:
`
`• contribution – CERCLA § 113; and,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 8 of 21
`
`• declaratory judgment under 42 U.S.C. § 9613(G)(2), 28
`U.S.C. § 2201, Colorado law. (See, e.g., MDL DOC.
`218-1 at 31-34).
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`NEW MEXICO AND UTAH COURTS LACK PERSONAL
`JURISDICTION OVER HARRISON WESTERN.
`
`A.
`
`Standard Of Review.
`
`Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), a district court must grant a motion to dismiss
`
`if it lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant. “[W]hen the court’s jurisdiction is
`
`contested; the plaintiff has the burden of proving jurisdiction exists.” Wenz v.
`
`Memery Crystal, 55 F.3d 1503, 1505 (10th Cir. 1995). Where jurisdiction is
`
`determined on the base of affidavits, a district court must accept as true all well-
`
`pleaded, non-conclusory facts alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint, and resolve all
`
`factual disputes in the plaintiff’s favor. Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235, 1239
`
`(10th Cir. 2011). However, the allegations in a complaint are only taken as true to
`
`the extent that they are uncontroverted by the defendant’s affidavits. Kennedy v.
`
`Freeman, 919 F.2d 126, 128 (10th Cir. 1990). When, however, “personal
`
`jurisdiction is assessed in an evidentiary hearing … the plaintiff generally must
`
`establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that personal jurisdiction exists.”
`
`Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 1070 n.4 (10th
`
`Cir. 2008).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 9 of 21
`
`B.
`
`Personal Jurisdiction Generally.
`
`
`
`Where a federal statute provides for nationwide service of process, it becomes
`
`the statutory basis for personal jurisdiction. Peay v. BellSouth Med. Assistance
`
`Plan, 205 F.3d 1206, 1210 (10th Cir. 2000). CERCLA does not authorize
`
`nationwide service of process. See, e.g., U.S. v. Conrail, 674 F.Supp. 138, 142 n.1
`
`(D.Del. 1987) (noting nationwide service of process exception only for claims
`
`brought by United States); Steego Corp. v. Ravenal, 830 F. Supp. 42, 50 D. Mass.
`
`1993) (“CERCLA’s provision for nationwide service is only made applicable to suits
`
`brought on behalf of the United States, and not on behalf of private litigants, as is
`
`the case here…. Accordingly, this court rejects plaintiffs’ argument that the court
`
`has personal jurisdiction over all the defendants based on CERCLA’s provision for
`
`nationwide service of process.”).
`
`
`
`This means, then, that a court must look at whether the forum state authorizes
`
`service of process upon a non-resident defendant. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(A). Here,
`
`Utah does authorize such service of process (Utah Code Ann. § 78B-3-206), and
`
`Utah’s corresponding long-arm statute provides for the exercise of specific
`
`jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant under certain circumstances. Utah Code
`
`Ann. § 78B-3-205. Such jurisdiction, however, is expressly limited “to the fullest
`
`extent permitted by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 10 of 21
`
`United States Construction.” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-3-201(3). Accordingly,
`
`where, as here, a non-resident defendant challenges the exercise of specific
`
`jurisdiction, a Utah court “need only address the constitutional issue of whether the
`
`exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendants comports with due process.”
`
`Blueberry Hill LLC v. Shalom International Corp., Case No. 2:17-cv-00385-DS,
`
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189321, *4 (D. Utah Nov. 15, 2017).
`
`
`
`Similarly, per New Mexico’s long-arm statute, jurisdiction is authorized to the
`
`extent it is consistent with the Due Process Clause. Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d
`
`1210, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006).
`
`
`
`The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constrains the
`
`authority a state court may exercise over a non-resident defendant. See Walden v.
`
`Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121 (2013). That authority is a function of the relationship
`
`and connection between the state and the non-resident defendant. See Goodyear
`
`Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2850-51 (2011). Over
`
`time, courts addressing a state court’s authority over a non-resident defendant have
`
`differentiated between general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. See Daimler
`
`AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746, 754 (2014). A state court must have general or
`
`specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant before its exercise of authority
`
`over that defendant is considered constitutional. Goodyear Dunlop Tires
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 11 of 21
`
`Operations, S.A., 131 S.Ct. at 2853-54. More specifically, “[t]he Supreme Court
`
`has held that, to exercise [general or specific] jurisdiction in harmony with due
`
`process, defendants must have ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state, such that
`
`having to defend a lawsuit there would not ‘offend traditional notions of fair play
`
`and substantial justice.’” Dudnikov , 514 F.3d at 1070; Blueberry Hill LLC, 2017
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189321 at *5.
`
`
`
`Neither general nor specific jurisdiction is present here.
`
`C. General Jurisdiction Is Not Present In The Forum States.
`
`Only a limited set of affiliations with a forum will render a defendant
`
`amenable to all-purpose jurisdiction there. Daimler AG, 571 U.S. at 137. “For an
`
`individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the
`
`individual’s domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the
`
`corporation is fairly regarded as at home.” Id. “With respect to a corporation, the
`
`place of incorporation and principal place of business are ‘paradig[m] . . . bases for
`
`general jurisdiction.’” Id. Outside those paradigm bases, “only a limited set of
`
`affiliations with a forum” will subject a corporate defendant to general jurisdiction
`
`– which the U.S. Supreme Court calls the “exceptional case.” Id. at 137-39 n.19.
`
`In Daimler AG, the Supreme Court defined the extent “continuous and
`
`systematic” contacts could subject a defendant to all-purpose general jurisdiction:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 12 of 21
`
`The paradigm all-purpose forums for general jurisdiction
`are a corporation’s place of incorporation and principal
`place of business. [Citation.] Plaintiffs’ reasoning,
`however, would reach well beyond these exemplar bases
`to approve the exercise of general jurisdiction in every
`State in which a corporation ‘engages in a substantial,
`continuous, and
`systematic course of business.’
`[Citation.] The words “continuous and systematic,”
`plaintiffs and the Court of Appeals overlooked, were used
`in International Shoe to describe situations in which the
`exercise of specific jurisdiction would be appropriate.
`[Citation.] With respect to all-purpose jurisdiction,
`International Shoe spoke instead of “instances in which
`the continuous corporate operations within a state [are] so
`substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit . . . on
`causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct
`from those activities.” [Citation.] Accordingly, the proper
`inquiry, this Court has explained, is whether a foreign
`corporation's “affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous
`and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially at home in the
`forum State.” (Emphasis added). 571 U.S. at 119
`(internal citations omitted).
`
`ER and Utah have not alleged facts sufficient to establish the general
`
`
`
`
`jurisdiction of the courts of New Mexico or Utah over Harrison Western. (EXHIBIT
`
`A at ¶ 12) (alleging Harrison Western is a Colorado corporation with a principal
`
`place of business in Colorado); (see, e.g., MDL DOC. 218-1 at 25 (alleging Harrison
`
`Western is a Colorado corporation with its principal office located in Lakewood,
`
`Colorado and that “Harrison Western has repeatedly worked on and made itself
`
`available to work on mining reclamation, construction and other projects in New
`
`Mexico as a primary and/or sub-contractor for federal and state government
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 13 of 21
`
`agencies, general contractors for federal and state government agencies and/or other
`
`parties.”)).
`
`
`
`Both Utah and ER allege Harrison Western is a Colorado corporation with its
`
`principal office located in Colorado. Thus, the paradigm forum for general
`
`jurisdiction over Harrison Western is Colorado, not Utah or New Mexico.
`
`Furthermore, neither Utah nor ER alleges Harrison Western’s affiliations with Utah
`
`or New Mexico “are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially at
`
`home in [Utah and New Mexico].”
`
`Additionally, only a fraction of Harrison Western’s work over the last 10 years
`
`was performed in Utah or New Mexico. Out of nearly $150 million in total revenue
`
`during that time period, just over $9 million in revenue was earned on projects in the
`
`State of Utah, and just over $2 million in revenue was earned on projects in the State
`
`of New Mexico, which equated to 6.3% and 1.5% of total revenue, respectively.
`
`Conversely, approximately 52% of Harrison Western’s total revenue was earned on
`
`projects in the State of Colorado. Harrison Western could hardly be considered
`
`“essentially at home” in states in which it is not incorporated and has no office and
`
`earns 6.3% and 1.5% of its total revenue.
`
`
`
`ER has argued in jurisdictional discovery that the Court should consider
`
`factors identified by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Trierweiler v. Croxton &
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 14 of 21
`
`Trench Holding Corp., 90 F.3d 1523 (10th Cir. 1996). Harrison Western disputes
`
`the applicability of the Trierweiler factors because that case was decided several
`
`years before the more recent and seminal United States Supreme Court cases on
`
`general jurisdiction - Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. and Daimler AG.
`
`However, even if the Trierweiler factors are considered, they support a finding of
`
`no general jurisdiction over Harrison Western. The Trierweiler court considered
`
`four factors in analyzing a defendant’s contact with the forum state:
`
`●
`
`●
`
`whether the corporation solicits business in the state
`through a local office or agents;
`whether the corporation sends agents into the state
`on a regular basis to solicit business;
`the extent to which the corporation holds itself out
`as doing business in the forum state, through
`advertisements, listings or bank accounts; and,
`the volume of business conducted in the state by the
`corporation. 90 F.3d at 1533.
`
`As to the first factor, Harrison Western does not solicit business in the State
`
`●
`
`•
`
`of New Mexico or the State of Utah through local offices or agents. (EXHIBIT F –
`
`Declaration of Chris Hassel at ¶ 27). As to the second factor, HW does not regularly
`
`send agents into the State of New Mexico or the State of Utah to solicit business.
`
`(Id. at ¶ 28). As to the third factor, HW does not hold itself out as doing business
`
`in the State of New Mexico or the State of Utah through advertising or listings, and
`
`it has no bank accounts in the State of New Mexico or State of Utah. (Id. at ¶ 29).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 15 of 21
`
`HW’s website identifies projects it has worked; however, the majority of projects
`
`identified are in the State of Colorado. (Id. at ¶ 29). Finally, as to the fourth factor,
`
`as established above, out of nearly $150 million in total revenue during that time
`
`period, just over $9 million in revenue was earned on projects in the State of Utah,
`
`and just over $2 million in revenue was earned on projects in the State of New
`
`Mexico which, again, equated to only 6.3% and 1.5% of total revenue, respectively.
`
`(EXHIBIT C at 14-15).
`
`
`
`Harrison Western’s affiliations with the States of New Mexico and Utah are
`
`not so continuous and systematic as to render Harrison Western essentially at home
`
`in those states. Thus, generally jurisdiction is not present over Harrison Western in
`
`either New Mexico or Utah.
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Specific Jurisdiction Is Not Present In The Forum States.
`
`Where, as here, general jurisdiction is not present, a court may still exercise
`
`specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant when the “controversy is related
`
`to or ‘arises out of’ [that] defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Helicopteros
`
`Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872 (1984). In other words,
`
`“the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the
`
`forum state.” Walden, 134 S.Ct. at 1121. The defendant must have “‘purposefully
`
`directed’ its activities at the state’s residents,” and “the cause of action [must] arise[]
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 16 of 21
`
`out of those activities.” Melea, Ltd. v. Jawer SA, 511 F.3d 1060, 1066 (10th Cir.
`
`2007)(quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2182 (1985)). As
`
`the Tenth Circuit has recently held, “purposeful direction exists when there is ‘an
`
`intentional action … expressly aimed at the forum state … with [the] knowledge that
`
`the brunt of the injury would be felt in the forum state.’” Anzures v. Flagship
`
`Restaurant Group, 819 F.3d 1277, 1280 (10th Cir. 2016)(quoting Dudnikov v.
`
`Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, 514 F.3d 1063, 1072 (10th Cir. 2008)). Likewise,
`
`the connection between the defendant and the forum state must be “based on
`
`intentional conduct by the defendant” and “must arise out of contacts that the
`
`‘defendant himself’ creates with the forum State.” Walden, 134 S.Ct. at 1122-23
`
`(quoting Burger King Corp., 105 S.Ct. at 2184); see Calder v. Jones, 104 S.Ct.
`
`1482, 1487 (1984); Dudnikov, 514 F.3d at 1072.
`
`Here, Utah has alleged no intentional conduct by Harrison Western “expressly
`
`aimed at” the State of Utah; rather, all of the alleged conduct of Harrison Western
`
`concerns actions or inactions taking place in and aimed at the State of Colorado
`
`(EXHIBIT A at ¶¶ 12, 36, 39, 49-52, 56).3 Similarly, ER makes no allegations of
`
`
`3 Harrison Western vehemently disputes that it engaged in any tortious activity
`
`at all, since it was not involved in the August 4, 2015 plan to conduct excavation
`activities or the August 5, 2015 activities themselves, which resulted in the blowout.
`(See EXHIBIT A at ¶¶ 44, 55). However, for purposes of this motion, Harrison
`Western bases its arguments on the facts as alleged in Utah’s first amended
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 17 of 21
`
`conduct directed at the State of New Mexico or State of Utah. (See, e.g., MDL DOC.
`
`218-1 at 26-30). In fact, all conduct alleged by ER concerns actions or inactions
`
`taking place in and aimed at the State of Colorado. (Id.).
`
`Harrison Western did not purposefully direct any activity at the State of New
`
`Mexico or the State of Utah in connection with the Gold King Mine. All HW’s
`
`limited involvement with the Gold King Mine was undertaken in and directed at the
`
`State of Colorado. (EXHIBIT F at ¶ 30). In fact, the purpose of the project at the
`
`Gold King Mine was to safely reopen the mine, including directing any impounded
`
`water to a water treatment facility in the State of Colorado in the vicinity of the Gold
`
`King Mine. (Id.).
`
`Utah has alleged no knowledge on the part of Harrison Western that the
`
`actions it actually undertook in connection with the Gold King Mine (EXHIBIT A
`
`at ¶¶ 12, 36, 39-41) would result in harm to the State of Utah almost a year later,
`
`when “EPA’s On Site Team” -- in Harrison Western’s absence and without
`
`Harrison Western’s knowledge -- “created a plan to conduct excavation activities”
`
`and excavated at the mine adit (id. at ¶ 44), causing the spill. Similarly, ER has also
`
`alleged no knowledge on the part of Harrison Western that the actions it actually
`
`
`complaint, although it is Harrison Western’s position that such allegations are
`groundless.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 18 of 21
`
`undertook in connection with the Gold King Mine would result in harm to the State
`
`of New Mexico or State of Utah. (See generally, e.g., MDL DOC. 218-1).
`
`The spill, of course, ultimately brought contaminated wastewater from the
`
`Gold King Mine into the San Juan River and eventually into Lake Powell.
`
`(EXHIBIT A at ¶¶ 1, 62). However, where damage or injury is felt is not a sufficient
`
`connection with the forum state to serve as the basis for specific jurisdiction.
`
`Walden, 134 S.Ct. at 1125 (“The proper question is not where the plaintiff
`
`experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant’s conduct
`
`connects him to the forum in a meaningful way.”) (Emphasis supplied). In other
`
`words, “a plaintiff’s injuries must ‘“arise out of’ [the] defendant’s forum-related
`
`activities.’” (Emphasis added). Anzures, 819 F.3d at 1280 (quoting Dudnikov,
`
`514 F.3d at 1071).
`
`Because Utah and ER have alleged no intentional conduct by Harrison
`
`Western “expressly aimed at” the State of Utah or State of New Mexico or
`
`knowledge that that “the brunt of the injury would be felt in the forum states,” (see
`
`Dudnikov, 514 F.3d at 1072), there is no specific personal jurisdiction over Harrison
`
`Western in New Mexico or Utah. Harrison Western therefore respectfully requests
`
`the Court dismiss all claims against it under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 19 of 21
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the aforementioned reasons, defendant Harrison Western Construction
`
`Corporation moves now to dismiss the State of Utah’s and Environmental
`
`Restoration’s claims against it pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
`
`DATED THIS 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`HALL & EVANS, LLC
`
`By:[s/ Brian Molzahn]__________________
`
`Brian Molzahn (pro hac vice)
`HALL & EVANS, LLC
`1001 Seventeenth Street Suite 300
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`(303) 628-3300
`(303) 628-3368 [facsimile]
`molzahnb@hallevans.com
`DEFENDANT
`COUNSEL
`FOR
`WESTERN
`HARRISON
`CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 20 of 21
`
`WORD-COUNT LIMIT CERTIFICATION
`
`Pursuant to DUCivR 7-1(a)(3)(A), I hereby certify that the
`
`foregoing MOTION OF DEFENDANT HARRISON WESTERN
`CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION TO DISMISS STATE OF
`UTAH AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, LLC’S
`CLAIMS does not exceed the word-count limit for motions filed
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[s/ Brian Molzahn]_______________
`
`Brian Molzahn (pro hac vice)
`HALL & EVANS, LLC
`1001 Seventeenth Street Suite 300
`Denver, Colorado 80203
`(303) 628-3300
`(303) 628-3368 [facsimile]
`molzahnb@hallevans.com
`COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
`HARRISON
`WESTERN
`CONSTRUCTION
`CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-md-02824-WJ Document 865 Filed 10/13/20 Page 21 of 21
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`I, Cristina Ramirez, hereby certify that on this 13th day of
`October 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION OF
`DEFENDANT HARRISON WESTERN CONSTRUCTION
`CORPORATION TO DISMISS STATE OF UTAH AND
`ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, LLC’S CLAIMS was,
`unless otherwise noted, served on the following via CM/ECF system:
`
`COUNSEL OF RECORD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[s/ Cristina Ramirez ]_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Legal Secretary to
`Brian Molzahn (pro hac vice)
`HALL & EVANS, LLC
`1001 Seventeenth Street Suite 300
`Denver, Colorado 80203
`(303) 628-3300
`(303) 628-3368 [facsimile]
`molzahnb@hallevans.com
`COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
`HARRISON
`WESTERN
`CONSTRUCTION
`CORPORATION
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket