Case 1:18-cv-00319-WJ Document 487 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 15
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
`
`
`
`
` No. 1:18-md-02824-WJ
`
`
`In re: Gold King Mine Release in San Juan
`County, Colorado on August 5, 2015
`
`This Document Relates to:
`No. 16-cv-465-WJ/LF
`No. 16-cv-931-WJ/LF
`No. 18-cv-319-WJ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KINROSS GOLD U.S.A. INC. AND KINROSS GOLD CORPORATION’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CLAIMS OF NEW MEXICO,
`THE NAVAJO NATION, UTAH AND THE ALLEN PLAINTIFFS:
`PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`
`Defendants Kinross Gold U.S.A. Inc. (“KGUSA”) and Kinross Gold Corporation
`
`(“KGC”) (collectively “the Kinross Defendants”) respectfully submit that they are not subject to
`
`personal jurisdiction in either the State of New Mexico or the State of Utah, and accordingly, that
`
`the claims that have been brought against them in those states must be dismissed. On that basis,
`
`the Kinross Defendants hereby move for summary judgment on all claims asserted in this
`
`litigation by the State of New Mexico, the Navajo Nation, the State of Utah, and the Allen
`
`plaintiffs. In support of this motion, the Kinross Defendants state the following.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION:
`
`The EPA’s excavation at the Gold King Mine on August 5, 2015 triggered the Blowout
`
`that sparked this litigation. It released water from the Gold King Mine, which cascaded over
`
`nearby tailings and mine debris, creating a three-million-gallon concoction, which flowed into
`
`Cement Creek and eventually into the Animas River.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00319-WJ Document 487 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 15
`
`It is undisputed that the Blowout was caused by the EPA and its contractors—in fact, the
`
`EPA admitted it was responsible within hours after the Blowout began. It is also undisputed that
`
`neither KGUSA nor KGC played any role, directly or indirectly, in any of the events leading up
`
`to the Blowout. KGUSA and KGC find themselves in this litigation simply because of their
`
`affiliation with Sunnyside Gold Corporation (“SGC”), one of their indirect subsidiaries.
`
`SGC acquired the Sunnyside Mine in 1986 and operated it until 1991. The Sunnyside
`
`Mine is located on the east side of Bonita Peak, whereas the Gold King Mine is on the west side
`
`of Bonita Peak. The two mines’ interworkings are not connected. Between 1991, when SGC
`
`closed the mine, and 2002, SGC engaged in reclamation and remediation activities, under the
`
`supervision of the State of Colorado. SGC’s work was designed, intended and implemented to
`
`capture and retain the water in Colorado. Moreover, SGC’s work was, for all intents and
`
`purposes, complete by the end of 2002, before SGC became affiliated with the Kinross
`
`Defendants. 1
`
`Plaintiffs the State of Utah, the State of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation as well as
`
`the Allen plaintiffs (collectively “the Plaintiffs”) all claim that SGC’s closure and reclamation
`
`activities at the Sunnyside Mine proximately caused the Blowout at the Gold King Mine. They
`
`defeated the Kinross Defendants’ motion to dismiss with allegations “that KGUSA, acting as
`
`KGC’s agent or alter ego, ‘directed or controlled the conduct of Sunnyside Gold and operations at the
`
`Sunnyside Mine.’” Memorandum Opinion and Order, Doc. 168, p. 2. But the evidence supporting
`
`
`1 In 2003, after SGC had completed its reclamation at the Sunnyside Mine, KGUSA
`acquired the outstanding shares of Echo Bay, Inc., which in turn owns the outstanding shares of
`SGC. KGC, which is a Canadian corporation, owns the outstanding shares of Bema Gold
`(U.S.A) Inc., which owns KGUSA. Neither KGUSA nor KGC owned any interest in SGC, nor
`in any entity that owned an interest in SGC, before 2003. Neither Kinross entity was ever
`involved in the operation, or the closure, of the Sunnyside Mine.
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00319-WJ Document 487 Filed 10/13/20 Page 3 of 15
`
`the allegation that KGUSA and KGC actually directed or controlled SGC’s alleged “conduct”
`
`does not exist, because neither KGUSA nor KGC was affiliated with SGC when the alleged
`
`“conduct” occurred.
`
`KGUSA and KGC do not do business in Utah or New Mexico, and they have not
`
`engaged in any activity that was “purposefully directed” toward Utah or New Mexico.
`
`Moreover, the Plaintiffs’ injuries did not arise from any conduct by either Kinross Defendant,
`
`directed toward either Utah or New Mexico. As set forth below, this Court lacks jurisdiction over
`
`either Kinross defendant.
`
`
`D.N.M.LR-CIV 7.1(a) CERTIFICATION:
`
`Counsel for KGUSA and KGC hereby certify that they have conferred in good faith with
`
`II.
`
`
`
`counsel for the State of New Mexico, the Navajo Nation, the State of Utah, and the Allen
`
`Plaintiffs, and determined that this motion is opposed.
`
`III. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:
`
`1.
`
`KGUSA is a Nevada corporation, with its principal place of business in Colorado.
`
`Utah Amended Compl. ¶ 14; New Mexico Amended Compl. ¶ 19; Navajo Amended Compl. ¶ 20;
`
`see also, Ex. 1, Decl. of Martin Litt (dated 7/23/18), ¶4.
`
`2.
`
`KGUSA does not do business in Utah or New Mexico and is not licensed to do
`
`business in Utah or New Mexico. Ex. 1, Decl. of Martin Litt, ¶¶ 5-9.
`
`3.
`
`KGUSA does not do business in Utah or New Mexico and is not licensed to do
`
`business in Utah or New Mexico. Id.
`
`4.
`
`KGUSA is registered as a foreign corporation in Utah because, between 2012 and
`
`2014, KGUSA was the lessee under four mineral leases in Beaver County, Utah. KGUSA
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00319-WJ Document 487 Filed 10/13/20 Page 4 of 15
`
`conducted limited exploration but no development work on those leases, and all of them were
`
`expressly terminated in 2014. Id.
`
`5.
`
`Other than these four leases, KGUSA does not own, lease, or maintain, and has
`
`not owned, leased or maintained any property in Utah. Id.
`
`6.
`
`KGUSA has never conducted any business in New Mexico and has no employees
`
`in New Mexico. Id.; see also, Ex. 2, Decl. of Martin Litt (dated 10/31/16), ¶4.
`
`7.
`
`All of SGC’s shares are owned by Echo Bay, Inc., which is a Delaware
`
`Corporation. Echo Bay, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of KGUSA. Ex. 1, Decl. of Martin
`
`Litt, ¶ 10; Ex. 3, Decl. of Kathleen Grandy (dated 10/18/2016), ¶8.
`
`8.
`
`KGUSA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bema Gold (U.S.) Inc, a Nevada
`
`Corporation, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of KGC. Ex. 3, Decl. of Kathleen
`
`Grandy, ¶8.
`
`9.
`
`KGUSA acquired the Echo Bay, Inc. shares on January 31, 2003. KGUSA did not
`
`own any direct or indirect interest in Echo Bay, Inc. or SGC, before that date. Ex. 1, Decl. of
`
`Martin Litt, ¶ 11.
`
`10.
`
`KGC is a Canadian corporation, and its principal place of business is in Toronto.
`
`Utah Amended Compl. ¶ 13; New Mexico Amended Compl. ¶ 18; Navajo Amended Compl. ¶ 19.
`
`11.
`
`KGC does not do business in the United States, and it does not do business in
`
`either Utah or New Mexico, is not licensed to do business in Utah or New Mexico, does not have
`
`a registered agent in Utah or New Mexico, and does not own, lease, or maintain any property in
`
`Utah or New Mexico. Ex. 3, Decl. of Kathleen Grandy, ¶¶ 5-6; Ex. 4, Decl. of Kathleen Grandy
`
`(dated 12/14/2017), ¶¶ 5-6.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00319-WJ Document 487 Filed 10/13/20 Page 5 of 15
`
`12.
`
`KGC has no employees in Utah or New Mexico and has had no employees in
`
`Utah or New Mexico at any time relevant to the claims in these cases. Id.
`
`13.
`
`KGC has never availed itself of the privilege of doing business in either Utah or
`
`New Mexico. This suit does not arise out of or relate to KGC activities in Utah or New Mexico
`
`because there have been none. Id.
`
`14.
`
`SGC closed the Sunnyside Mine on August 1, 1991. New Mexico Amended
`
`Compl. ¶ 29; Navajo Amended Compl. ¶ 39; Utah Amended Compl. ¶ 20. SGC installed the first
`
`bulkhead in the American Tunnel in July of 1995 (Ex. 4, ex. A thereto, Depo. of Perino, p.
`
`68:16-68:21); the second bulkhead was installed in the American Tunnel in August of 2001 (Id.;
`
`see also, Depo. of Perino, p. 135:11-135:22); the third bulkhead was installed in the American
`
`Tunnel in December of 2002. (See id; see also, Depo. of Perino, pp. 144:18-145:7).
`
`15. On January 14, 2003, the State of Colorado issued notice that Permit No. CO-
`
`0027529, which permitted water discharged from the American Tunnel, had been transferred
`
`from SGC to Gold King Mines Corporation. See, Ex. 5, ex. D thereto.
`
`16.
`
`On February 26, 2003, Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment
`
`determined that SGC had fulfilled and met its obligations under the Colorado state court’s
`
`Consent Decree. On July 3, 2003, the Consent Decree was terminated. See, Ex. 5, ex. A thereto,
`
`Depo. of Perino, pp. 153:19-155:3 and ex. 81.
`
`17.
`
`Neither KGC nor KGUSA owned or operated the Sunnyside Mine; rather it was
`
`owned and operated by SGC. (See, e.g., Ex. 5, ex. B thereto, Depo. of Goodhard, p. 341:3-
`
`341:20; Ex. 5, ex. C thereto, Depo. of Hayduk, pp. 139:18-140:7); see also, Ex. 2, Decl. of
`
`Martin Litt, ¶5.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00319-WJ Document 487 Filed 10/13/20 Page 6 of 15
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, deposition transcripts, affidavits
`
`and evidentiary material show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the
`
`moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Gillogly v. GE
`
`Capital Assurance, 430 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). A function of summary
`
`judgment is to eliminate factually unsupported claims. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
`
`317, 323-24 (1986).
`
`The movant bears the initial burden of “show[ing] that there is an absence of evidence to
`
`support the nonmoving party’s case.” Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887,
`
`891 (10th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
`
`317, 323 (1986). Once the movant meets this burden, rule 56(e) requires the nonmoving party to
`
`designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp. v.
`
`Catrett, 477 U.S. -8- at 324; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986); Vitkus v.
`
`Beatrice Co., 11 F.3d 1535, 1539 (10th Cir. 1993) (“However, the nonmoving party may not rest
`
`on its pleadings but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial as
`
`to those dispositive matters for which it carries the burden of proof.”) (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted). “In responding to a motion for summary judgment, ‘a party cannot rest on ignorance of
`
`facts, on speculation, or on suspicion and may not escape summary judgment in the mere hope
`
`that something will turn up at trial.’” Colony -9- Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Omer, 2008 WL 2309005 at *1
`
`(quoting Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 794 (10th Cir. 1988)).
`
`A dispute is “genuine” only if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
`
`verdict for the nonmoving party. Allen v. Muskogee, 119 F.3d 837, 839 (10th Cir. 1997). In other
`
`words, issues must exist that “can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00319-WJ Document 487 Filed 10/13/20 Page 7 of 15
`
`reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at
`
`250. A scintilla of evidence will not avoid summary judgment. See Vitkus v. Beatrice Co., 11
`
`F.3d at 1539. “[T]here is no evidence for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the
`
`nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`
`477 U.S. at 249 (internal citations omitted). Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a
`
`rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial. See
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES:
`
`A.
`
`Utah and New Mexico Do Not Have Personal Jurisdiction Over the Kinross
`Defendants.
`
`“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not permit a State to hale an
`
`out-of-state corporation before its courts when the corporation is not ‘at home’ in the State and
`
`the episode-in-suit occurred elsewhere.” BNSF R. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549, 1554 (2017),
`
`quoting Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014). Where a non-resident corporation is
`
`not “at home” in the forum state, and the defendant’s alleged activities “occurred elsewhere,” the
`
`Due Process Clause “constrains a State’s authority to bind a nonresident defendant.” Walden v.
`
`Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283 (2014). Since 1945, the courts have consistently held that states can
`
`exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants only when the out-of-state defendants
`
`have “certain minimum contacts” with the State, “…such that the maintenance of the suit does
`
`not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” International Shoe
`
`Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945). Thus, Due Process allows
`
`personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants only when two elements are met. “First, a
`
`defendant must have ‘purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum state.’”
`
`Dental Dynamics, LLC v. Jolly Dental Group, LLC, 946 F.3d 1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2020)
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00319-WJ Document 487 Filed 10/13/20 Page 8 of 15
`
`(quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)).
`
`“Second, the assertion of personal jurisdiction must comport with traditional notions of fair play
`
`and substantial justice.” Id. at 1229 (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476,
`
`105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)).
`
`Minimum contacts can be established generally, when the defendant is shown to have
`
`continuous and systematic general business connections with the forum state, or specifically,
`
`when the defendant’s alleged conduct was specifically directed toward the forum state. See
`
`BNSF Ry. v. Tyrrell, 137 S.Ct. 1549, 198 L.Ed. 2d 36, 46 (2017). In this case, neither KGUSA
`
`nor KGC has purposefully established any general minimum contacts, or any specific minimum
`
`contacts, with either New Mexico or Utah.
`
`1.
`
`General Jurisdiction Does Not Exist. “Because general jurisdiction is not related
`
`to the events giving rise to the suit, courts impose a more stringent minimum contacts test,
`
`requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate the defendant's continuous and systematic general business
`
`contacts.” Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 877 F.3d 895, 904 (10th Cir. 2017),
`
`citing Benton v. Cameco Corp., 375 F.3d 1070, 1080 (10th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted).
`
`General personal jurisdiction exists only when a corporation’s connections with the forum State
`
`“are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.” Old
`
`Republic Ins. Co. v. Continental Motors, Inc., 877 F.3d 895, 904 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting
`
`Goodyear Dunlop, 564 U.S. at 919). When those connections exist, the state’s courts may
`
`exercise jurisdiction over the defendant for any lawsuit. Id. at 903-04. General personal
`
`jurisdiction typically exists only where the corporation was incorporated or in its principal place
`
`of business. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 139 n.19, 134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624
`
`(2014). (It is an “exceptional case” where “a corporation’s operations in a forum other than its
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00319-WJ Document 487 Filed 10/13/20 Page 9 of 15
`
`formal place of incorporation or principal place of business [will] be so substantial and of such a
`
`nature as to render the corporation at home in that State.”)
`
`KGUSA is a Nevada corporation, and its principal place of business is in Colorado.
`
`KGC is a Canadian corporation, and its principal place of business is in Toronto. Neither entity
`
`does business in New Mexico or Utah, and neither entity is licensed to do business in either state.
`
`Neither has a registered agent in New Mexico or Utah, or any employees in either state, and
`
`neither owns, leases, or maintains any property in New Mexico or Utah. Undisputed Material
`
`Facts 1-6, 10-13. Obviously, neither KGUSA nor KGC has “continuous” or “systematic”
`
`operations in New Mexico or Utah that would render it “at home” in either state. General
`
`personal jurisdiction over either KGC or KGUSA has not been alleged and does not exist.
`
`2.
`
`Specific Jurisdiction Does Not Exist. When a defendant’s forum state contacts do
`
`not support general jurisdiction, they might support specific jurisdiction, but only if they are
`
`“sufficiently related to the cause of action.” Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Continental Motors, Inc.
`
`877 F.3d, 895, 904 (10th Cir. 2017), citing Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 134 S. Ct.
`
`746, 754, 187 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2014). To meet this test, a plaintiff must demonstrate that “…(a)
`
`the defendant purposefully directed its activities at the forum state, and (b) the plaintiff’s cause
`
`of action arose out of those activities…” Id., at 909 (emphasis added). In addition, the exercise
`
`of jurisdiction must be reasonable and fair. Id., at 904.
`
`Purposeful direction is established “when an out-of-state defendant’s intentional conduct
`
`targets and has substantial harmful effects in the forum state.” Old Republic Ins. Co., 877 F.3d at
`
`907 (emphasis by the Court). The analysis focuses on “three salient factors,” which are “(a) an
`
`intentional action … that was (b) expressly aimed at the forum state … with (c) knowledge that
`
`the brunt of the injury would be felt in the forum state.” Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235,
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00319-WJ Document 487 Filed 10/13/20 Page 10 of 15
`
`1239 (10th Cir. 2011); see also Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, 514 F.3d 1063, 1077
`
`(10th Cir. 2008) (purposeful direction satisfied where “defendants undertook intentional actions
`
`that were expressly aimed at [the] forum state” (emphasis by the Court)). In this case, the
`
`question is whether either KGUSA or KGC engaged in intentional conduct that was directed
`
`toward either New Mexico or Utah, with knowledge that “the brunt of the injury” would be felt
`
`in New Mexico (for the claims of New Mexico, the Navajo Nation and the Allen plaintiffs) or
`
`Utah.
`
`This inquiry must focus on the activities of KGUSA and KGC themselves. As the Tenth
`
`Circuit has held, courts “must examine the quantity and quality of Defendants’ contacts with [the
`
`forum state] to determine whether the district court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over
`
`Defendants comports with due process.” OMI Holdings v. Royal Ins. Co. of Can., 149 F.3d 1086,
`
`1092 (10th Cir. 1998) (emphasis by the court). In other words, “specific jurisdiction must be
`
`based on actions by the defendant and not on events that are the result of unilateral actions taken
`
`by someone else.” Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Heliqwest Intern., Ltd., 385 F.3d 1291, 1296
`
`(10th Cir. 2004). see also Dudnikov, 514 F.3d at 1072 (“The defendant’s only contact, the
`
`presence of its product in the forum, is the result of the act of someone else and not the
`
`defendant’s own intentional conduct.”).
`
`Neither KGUSA nor KGC engaged in intentional conduct directed toward New Mexico
`
`or Utah. Not only have KGUSA and KGC never done business in either state—they have never
`
`themselves engaged in any activity or conduct directed toward either state. Nor did they control
`
`or direct any activities directed toward either state.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00319-WJ Document 487 Filed 10/13/20 Page 11 of 15
`
`a.
`
`Neither KGUSA nor KGC engaged in any intentional acts.
`
`As noted above, the court denied the Kinross Defendants’ motion to dismiss because
`
`plaintiffs alleged “that KGUSA, acting as KGC’s agent or alter ego, ‘directed or controlled the
`
`conduct of Sunnyside Gold and operations at the Sunnyside Mine.’” Memorandum Opinion and
`
`Order, Doc. 168, p. 2. It is undisputed, however, that the Sunnyside Mine was closed in 1986,
`
`and it is undisputed that SGC was not acquired until January 31, 2003. Obviously, because KGC
`
`and KGUSA were not affiliated with SGC when the Sunnyside Mine was in operation, the notion
`
`that KGC and KGUSA “directed or controlled … operations at the Sunnyside Mine” cannot be
`
`true.
`
`To the extent that the Plaintiffs are alleging that KGUSA and KGC controlled or directed
`
`SGC’s post-closure activities, the facts once again refute their allegations. Again, SGC installed
`
`the bulkheads in the American Tunnel before it became affiliated with the Kinross Defendants.
`
`(Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, 14-16). Moreover, the State of Colorado certified that
`
`SGC had fulfilled its Consent Decree obligations on February 26, 2003, less than a month after
`
`the acquisition, and formally released SGC from the Consent Decree in July of 2003. In other
`
`words, SGC had completed the work that is at issue in this litigation before it became a
`
`subsidiary of either Kinross Defendant.
`
`In sum, KGUSA and KGC did not direct or control SGC’s mining operations, or the mine
`
`closure, or the remediation efforts described in the Plaintiffs’ complaints; those activities were
`
`carried out and completed before SGC was acquired. The first prong of the purposeful direction
`
`test has not been met.
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00319-WJ Document 487 Filed 10/13/20 Page 12 of 15
`
`b.
`
`The requirement that KGUSA and KGC “expressly aimed” any intentional
`acts toward either Utah or New Mexico is also missing.
`
`
`When addressing this factor, 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.” Walden, 134 S.Ct. at 1125 (emphasis added). To satisfy this second prong,
`
`Plaintiffs must demonstrate that their injuries “‘arise out of [the] defendant’s forum-related
`
`activities.” Anzures v. Flagship Restaurant Group, 819 F.3d 1277, 1280 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting
`
`Dudnikov, 514 F.3d at 1071) (internal citation omitted). It is undisputed, however, that SGC’s
`
`efforts were designed and undertaken to capture and retain water within the tunnels, inside the
`
`mine, in Colorado. See, generally, SGC Motion for Summary Judgment, pp. 3-5. SGC’s actions,
`
`in other words, were directed exclusively toward Colorado and were done “to protect the waters
`
`of the State of Colorado.” Id., SGC Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, ¶¶ 10, 13, 14. This
`
`fact is undisputed and undeniable. Accordingly, even if SGC’s activities had been carried out at
`
`times when they could have been controlled by KGUSA or KGC, those activities were not aimed
`
`toward Utah, and they were not aimed toward New Mexico. The Kinross Defendants did not
`
`direct SGC’s activities, and even if they had, those activities were not purposefully directed
`
`toward either forum state.
`
`c.
`
`Since neither Kinross Defendant engaged in intentional conduct that was
`directed toward either New Mexico or Utah, they also could not have
`known that “the brunt of the injury” would be felt in New Mexico or Utah.
`
`
`The notion that the Kinross Defendants controlled SGC’s reclamation activities is
`
`unfounded, because SGC’s reclamation work was complete before it became affiliated with the
`
`Kinross Defendants. The notion that SGC’s activities, or any activities by either Kinross
`
`Defendant, was purposefully directed toward either New Mexico or Utah is also unfounded,
`
`because SGC’s efforts were directed exclusively toward Colorado. Given these facts and this
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00319-WJ Document 487 Filed 10/13/20 Page 13 of 15
`
`timing, and given that SGC’s activities were permitted, regulated and controlled by Colorado, the
`
`notion that SGC or either Kinross Defendant knew or could have known that the brunt of any
`
`injury would be felt in New Mexico or Utah is likewise unfounded.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION:
`
`The August 5, 2015 Blowout was caused by the EPA and its contractors. The only
`
`purported connection to the KGC and KGUSA arises from the fact that SGC, by successfully
`
`carrying out its reclamation work, impounded water in Colorado, and thereafter became an
`
`indirect subsidiary of KGUSA and KGC. But the water was released by the EPA and its
`
`contractors, and not by SGC or either Kinross Defendant. Whether the EPA’s activities were
`
`directed toward New Mexico and Utah is debatable, but clearly, the Kinross Defendants’
`
`activities were not.
`
`The undisputed facts demonstrate that neither KGUSA nor KGC undertook any
`
`purposeful activity, directed toward either New Mexico or Utah, with knowledge that the brunt
`
`of the injury would be felt there. For this reason, and for all of the reasons stated herein, the
`
`Kinross Defendants respectfully submit that the courts of New Mexico and Utah lack jurisdiction
`
`over them, and request that the claims that have been brought against them be dismissed.
`
`
`DATED this 13th day of October 2020.
`
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00319-WJ Document 487 Filed 10/13/20 Page 14 of 15
`
`Respectfully,
`
`HOLLAND & HART LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Bradford C. Berge
`Bradford C. Berge
`Jules Elese Angelley
`P.O. Box 2208
`110 N. Guadalupe, Ste. 1
`Santa Fe, NM 87504-2208
`TEL: 505-988-4421
`FAX: 505-983-6043
`bberge@hollandhart.com
`jeangelley@hollandhart.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Kinross Gold U.S.A., Inc.
`and Kinross Gold Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00319-WJ Document 487 Filed 10/13/20 Page 15 of 15
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on the 13th day of October 2020, the foregoing was filed via the U.S.
`
`District Court of New Mexico’s CM/ECF electronic filing system and a copy thereof was served
`
`via the CM/ECF upon all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Bradford C. Berge
` Bradford C. Berge
`
`
`
`15526182_v4
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 15
`
`