throbber
Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 226 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 19
`
`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 (consolidated
`with 16-cv-931-WJ-LF)
`No. 18-cv-319-WJ
`No. 18-cv-744-WJ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT SUNNYSIDE GOLD CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT ON GROUNDS OF LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`When this Court last visited the issue of whether personal jurisdiction exists over
`
`Sunnyside Gold Corporation (SGC) eighteen months ago, it concluded that Plaintiffs had
`
`satisfied their minimal burden at the dismissal stage by alleging facts sufficient to make a prima
`
`facie showing of personal jurisdiction. See Mem. Op. and Order, Doc. Nos. 168, 172. After a
`
`year and a half of discovery, however, the Plaintiffs have failed to produce evidence
`
`demonstrating that SGC is subject to either general or specific personal jurisdiction in New
`
`Mexico or Utah. As such, the Plaintiffs’ unsubstantiated jurisdictional allegations will no longer
`
`suffice to sustain these lawsuits against SGC, and summary judgment should be granted on
`
`grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction. See ASCO Healthcare, Inc. v. Heart of Tex. Health
`
`Care and Rehab., Inc., 540 F.Supp.2d 634, 640-41 (D.Md. 2008) (“Because this Court has
`
`permitted [plaintiff] to conduct extensive jurisdictional discovery, … plaintiffs must do more
`
`than merely establish personal jurisdiction by the prima facie standard. Instead, [plaintiff] must
`
`present substantial evidence to show that the defendants had the requisite minimum contacts with
`
`Page 1 of 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 226 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 19
`
`Maryland to justify the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction.”) (internal quotations and
`
`citation omitted). SGC has conferred with the parties and they oppose this motion.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the Court “shall grant
`
`summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
`
`and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Summary judgment is not a
`
`“disfavored procedural shortcut,” but an important procedure “designed ‘to secure the just,
`
`speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.’” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
`
`327 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). The moving party bears the initial burden of
`
`demonstrating an absence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a
`
`matter of law. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
`
`Once the movant has met this initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to
`
`“set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty
`
`Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). In applying this standard, the Court views the evidence
`
`and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). A “mere existence
`
`of a scintilla of evidence” in support of the non-movant’s position, however, is insufficient;
`
`“there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson,
`
`477 U.S. at 252. Further, “[c]onclusory allegations that are unsubstantiated do not create an
`
`issue of fact and are insufficient to oppose summary judgment.” Elsken v. Network Multi–
`
`Family Sec. Corp., 49 F.3d 1470, 1476 (10th Cir. 1995).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`SGC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Colorado.
`
`Utah Am. Compl., ¶ 15; N.M. Am. Compl., ¶ 20, Allen Am. Compl., ¶ 312.
`
`Page 2 of 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 226 Filed 10/13/20 Page 3 of 19
`
`2.
`
`SGC does not do business in New Mexico or Utah, is not licensed to do business
`
`in New Mexico or Utah, and SGC does not have a registered agent in either state. K. Roach
`
`Decl., ¶ 7 [Doc. 42-2].
`
`3.
`
`SGC does not own, lease, or maintain any property in New Mexico or Utah, nor
`
`does it have any offices or operations in New Mexico or Utah. Id., ¶ 6.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`SGC does not have any employees located in New Mexico or Utah. Id., ¶ 8.
`
`At all relevant times, SGC acted in compliance with a Consent Decree, which was
`
`entered and approved by a Colorado state District Court. Consent Decree [Doc. 42-1].
`
`6.
`
`In the Consent Decree, the Colorado Court acknowledged that SGC owned an
`
`inactive mining property in San Juan County, Colorado, commonly referred to as the Sunnyside
`
`Mine, and that SGC undertook reclamation and mining operations at the mine from 1985 to
`
`1991. Id. at 2.
`
`7.
`
`The Colorado Court noted that the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board had
`
`adopted and approved a reclamation plan that required SGC to design and install several
`
`engineered, concrete bulkheads to retain water in the Sunnyside Mine. Id. at p. 4.
`
`8.
`
`The Consent Decree noted that the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology
`
`had concluded that “hydraulic seals [bulkheads] offer the best alternative for final mine site
`
`reclamation” and that “the physical setting of the Sunnyside Mine appeared to be ideal for a
`
`hydraulic sealing scheme.” Id. at p. 5.
`
`9.
`
`The Consent Decree, entered into by the State of Colorado and approved by a
`
`Colorado Court, specifically contemplated that “installation of these bulkhead seals will impound
`
`water behind the bulkheads, eventually flooding the Mine, and at some time subsequent to initial
`
`Mine flooding, water, which is now discharged through the American Tunnel and Terry Tunnel
`
`Page 3 of 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 226 Filed 10/13/20 Page 4 of 19
`
`portals pursuant to the CDPS Permits, may flow through underground fractures and fault systems
`
`which may form seeps and springs which discharge into surface waters.” Id. at p. 6.
`
`10. While Colorado and SGC initially disagreed as to how any restored flows would
`
`be handled, the Consent Decree reflected an agreement designed to improve water quality. The
`
`Consent Decree states:
`
`[T]o resolve this dispute, to allow SGC to proceed with final reclamation of the
`Sunnyside Mine, to provide for closure of the American and Terry Tunnels by
`hydraulic seals, to provide for mitigation of certain other historic mining
`conditions, to protect the waters of the State of Colorado, and to provide for final
`termination of CDPA Permits No. CO-00272529 and CO-0036056, the parties
`agree to the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree.
`
`
`Id. at p. 6-7.
`
`11.
`
`Finally, in the Consent Decree, the Colorado Court “ordered, adjudged and
`
`decreed … that the settlement embodied in this Consent Decree is lawful under the [Colorado
`
`Water Quality Control] Act, is consistent with the purposes of the Act, and is intended to protect
`
`the waters of the State of Colorado.” Id. at p. 8 (emphasis added).
`
`12.
`
`EPA reviewed and commented on the Consent Decree and, on April 5, 1996, EPA
`
`congratulated both SGC and the State on the Consent Decree and its stated purpose of improving
`
`water quality in the Animas River.
`
`The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commends both the State of
`Colorado and Sunnyside Gold Corporation (SGC) on your innovative approach to
`problems encountered in final closure of the Sunnyside Gold Mine. Further, the
`EPA is pleased that Colorado has chosen to use a watershed/trading approach as
`one step toward achieving the goals of improving water quality in the Animas
`River. As active members of the Animas River Stakeholders Group, EPA
`understands and supports the concepts of community based environmental
`protection.
`
`Exhibit 1, USA_000025388.
`
`Page 4 of 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 226 Filed 10/13/20 Page 5 of 19
`
`13.
`
` The purpose of bulkheads is to improve water quality by submerging exposed
`
`metals in water, depriving them of oxygen, and thereby decreasing acid rock drainage. EPA and
`
`the State of Colorado consultants Deere & Ault, in commenting on bulkheads in the Bonita Peak
`
`Mining District, have plainly stated as much.
`
`Water impounding concrete bulkheads installed at strategic locations in draining
`and discharging underground mine workings have the potential to flood the
`workings and create a mine pool that will eventually establish a ground water
`system with water table and flow paths similar to the pre-mining system. Saturation
`of sulfide minerals in the flooded workings and country rock will create relatively
`anoxic conditions and limit the generation of ARD [acid rock drainage]. Bulkhead
`installation eliminates rapid and continuous collection and discharge of ground
`water through open mine workings and minimizes direct discharge of ARD from
`mine portals….Bulkhead installation in mines that are determined to be good
`candidates has the potential to significantly reduce metal loading to receiving
`streams.
`
`Exhibit 2, ER_DRMS00003923.
`
`14.
`
` The bulkheads SGC installed reduced discharge from the American Tunnel from
`
`approximately 1600 gallons per minute to less than 100 gallons per minute. As the State of
`
`Colorado commented, “Installing a bulkhead at Sunnyside significantly improved the drainage.”
`
`Exhibit 3, ER_DRMS00001949.
`
`15.
`
`The instant lawsuits arise out of the August 5, 2015 Gold King Blowout.
`
`According to the State of Utah:
`
`On the morning of August 5, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
`(“EPA”) and its contractors triggered an uncontrolled blowout at the Gold King
`Mine located about five miles north of Silverton, Colorado (the “Blowout”). The
`disaster dumped over three million gallons of acid wastes and toxic metals into
`Cement Creek and the Animas River, turning the river into a vivid orange brown
`color. As the flow continued downstream, those hazardous wastes were deposited
`along the Animas and San Juan Rivers, until the plume reached Lake Powell in
`Utah on August 14, 2015.
`
`
`Utah Am. Compl., ¶ 1. As Utah notes: “EPA conceded it is responsible for the Blowout
`
`and its impacts, stating: ‘EPA takes responsibility for the Gold King Mine release and is
`
`Page 5 of 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 226 Filed 10/13/20 Page 6 of 19
`
`committed to continue working hand-in-hand with the impacted local governments, states
`
`and tribes.’” Id. at ¶ 2; see also id. at ¶ 59 (“The intentional actions of the EPA and
`
`Contractor Defendants caused a breach in the adit, resulting in the Blowout.”).
`
`16.
`
`New Mexico’s Amended Complaint similarly alleges:
`
`On August 5, 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)
`and its contractors breached a collapsed portal of the Gold King Mine, releasing
`over three million gallons of acid mine drainage and 880,000 pounds of heavy
`metals into the Animas River watershed in southwestern Colorado. This massive
`release quickly overwhelmed Cement Creek, a tributary of the Animas River, and
`then snaked down the Animas through Colorado and into New Mexico, where the
`Animas joins the San Juan River. The sickly yellow plume of contamination then
`coursed through the San Juan River in New Mexico, the Navajo Nation, and into
`Utah. One week later the plume reached Lake Powell.
`
`N.M. Am. Compl., ¶ 1.
`
`
`
`17.
`
`The Navajo Nation’s First Amended Complaint alleges:
`
`On August 5, 2015, the USEPA and other responsible parties caused an
`unprecedented environmental disaster when they recklessly burrowed into an
`abandoned gold mine (“Gold King Mine”) and released more than three million
`gallons of toxic acid mine waste into the waters upstream of the Nation. For nearly
`two days, the USEPA did not call, alert or notify the Nation that this toxic sludge
`had been released and was headed into their waters and land. At least 880,000
`pounds of heavy metals poured out and coursed through downstream waterways,
`including approximately two hundred miles of the San Juan River (the “River”).
`One of the Navajo people’s most important sources of water for life and livelihood
`was poisoned with some of the worst contaminants known to man, including lead
`and arsenic.
`
`N.N. First Am. Compl., ¶ 1.
`
`
`18.
`
`Finally, the Allen Plaintiffs allege:
`
`On the morning of August 5, 2015, the Defendant United States Environmental
`Protection Agency (“EPA”) and its contractors caused a blowout of the Gold King
`Mine while excavating it.
`
`The blowout caused the release of at least three million gallons of contaminated
`water into Cement Creek which flows to the Animas and San Juan Rivers. The
`toxic wastewater included dangerous contaminants such as arsenic and lead that
`were deposited along the Animas and San Juan Rivers.
`
`Page 6 of 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 226 Filed 10/13/20 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`EPA has conceded it is responsible for the spill and its impacts.
`
`Allen Compl., ¶¶ 2-4.
`
`IV. THE COURTS OF NEW MEXICO AND UTAH LACK PERSONAL
`JURISDICTION OVER SGC
`
`To establish personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant like SGC, the Plaintiffs
`
`“must demonstrate that jurisdiction is proper under the laws of the forum state … and that the
`
`exercise of jurisdiction complies with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
`
`Dental Dynamics, LLC v. Jolly Dental Group, LLC, 946 F.3d 1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2020) (citing
`
`Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 282, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014)). Because the long-
`
`arm statutes of New Mexico and Utah both confer the jurisdiction permitted by constitutional
`
`due process—see Resource Assocs. Grant Writing & Eval. Servs., Inc. v Southampton Union
`
`Free Sch. Dist., 193 F.Supp.3d 1200, 1220 (D.N.M. 2016), and Edizone, LLC v. Asia Focus Int’l
`
`Group, Inc., 196 F.Supp.3d 1222, 1225 (D. Utah 2016)—the relevant inquiry “is whether the
`
`district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction [over SGC] comports with due process.” C5
`
`Medical Werks, LLC v. CeramTec GMBH, 937 F.3d 1319, 1322 (10th Cir. 2019) (citation
`
`omitted).
`
`The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “constrains a State’s authority to
`
`bind a nonresident defendant to a judgment of its courts.” Walden, 571 U.S. at 283. The Due
`
`Process Clause authorizes personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if two elements are
`
`met. “First, a defendant must have ‘purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum
`
`state.’” Dental Dynamics, 946 F.3d at 1229 (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)). Courts
`
`Page 7 of 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 226 Filed 10/13/20 Page 8 of 19
`
`analyze this constitutional due process question with reference to two forms of personal
`
`jurisdiction: general or all-purpose jurisdiction, and specific or case-linked jurisdiction.
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180
`
`L.Ed.2d 796 (2011).
`
`A.
`
`The New Mexico and Utah Courts Lack General Personal Jurisdiction over
`SGC.
`
`A defendant is subject to general personal jurisdiction within a State “when [its]
`
`affiliations with the 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). In that circumstance, the State court
`
`may exercise jurisdiction over the defendant for any lawsuit. Id. at 903-04. However, it is only
`
`in an “exceptional case” that “a corporation’s operations in a forum other than its 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.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 139 n.19,
`
`134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014).
`
`SGC is a Delaware corporation, and its principal place of business is in Colorado. SGC
`
`does not do business in New Mexico, and SGC is not licensed to do business in New Mexico.
`
`SGC does not have a registered agent in New Mexico, and SGC does not own, lease, or maintain
`
`any property in New Mexico. SGC has no offices, operations, or employees in New Mexico.
`
`
`
`Quite clearly, it cannot be said that SGC’s affiliations with the states of New Mexico and
`
`Utah are so “continuous and systematic” as to render it essentially “at home” in either of those
`
`forums. The courts in those states plainly lack general personal. Similarly, SGC does not do
`
`business in Utah, is not licensed to do business in Utah, and does not have a registered agent in
`
`Page 8 of 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 226 Filed 10/13/20 Page 9 of 19
`
`Utah. SGC does not own, lease, or maintain property in Utah. Nor does SGC have any
`
`operations or employees in Utah. jurisdiction over SGC.
`
`B.
`
`The Courts Lack Specific Personal Jurisdiction over SGC.
`
`Specific personal jurisdiction allows a court to exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state
`
`defendant only for claims related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State. Old Republic,
`
`877 F.3d at 904. The minimum contacts test for specific personal jurisdiction has two
`
`requirements: “(1) a defendant must have ‘purposefully directed its activities at residents of the
`
`forum state,’ and (2) the plaintiff’s injuries must arise out of the defendant’s forum-related
`
`activities.” Dental Dynamics, 946 F.3d at 1229 (quoting Old Republic, 877 F.3d at 904). The
`
`arising-out-of component “requires courts to ensure that there is an adequate link between the
`
`forum State and the claims at issue, regardless of the extent of a defendant’s other activities
`
`connected to the forum.” XMission, L.C. v. Fluent LLC, 955 F.3d 833, 840 (10th Cir. 2020)
`
`(citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1781, 198 L.Ed.2d
`
`395 (2017)).
`
`
`
`For cases that have been consolidated as part of the Multidistrict Litigation process, the
`
`Court must look to the forum where each action was filed and apply the law of the original forum
`
`in determining whether personal jurisdiction exists. In re Sterling Foster & Co., Inc. Securities
`
`Litig., 222 F. Supp. 2d 289, 300 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (citing Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612,
`
`639–40, 84 S.Ct. 805, 821, 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964); In re Plumbing Fixtures Litig., 342 F.Supp.
`
`756, 758 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1972)); see also Wright & Miller, § 3867 Law of the Case Doctrine
`
`and the Effect of Transfer and Remand on Choice of Law, 15 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3867
`
`(4th ed.). Accordingly, there are two separate inquiries at issue, whether there is personal
`
`jurisdiction in New Mexico for those actions filed in New Mexico, and separately, whether there
`
`Page 9 of 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 226 Filed 10/13/20 Page 10 of 19
`
`is personal jurisdiction in Utah for the matter filed in Utah. SGC did not “purposefully direct”
`
`activities at residents of either New Mexico or Utah.
`
`
`
`Purposeful direction can be established “when an out-of-state defendant’s intentional
`
`conduct targets and has substantial harmful effects in the forum state.” Old Republic, 877 F.3d
`
`at 907 (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790-91, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984))
`
`(Court’s emphasis); see also Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063,
`
`1077 (10th Cir. 2008) (purposeful direction satisfied where “defendants undertook intentional
`
`actions that were expressly aimed at [the] forum state”) (Court’s emphasis). “Purposeful
`
`direction is a product of both the quantity and quality of a defendant’s contacts with the forum.”
`
`XMission, 955 F.3d at 840 (citing OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d
`
`1086, 1092 (10th Cir. 1998)). As the Tenth Circuit recently summarized:
`
`The requirement ensures that a defendant will not be subject to the laws of a
`jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts, … the
`unilateral activity of another party or a third person, ... or the mere foreseeability
`that its actions may cause injury in that jurisdiction.
`
`Id. at 840-41 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
`
`
`
`This case is the virtual paradigm of what fails to constitute “purposeful direction.” It is
`
`undisputed that SGC’s reclamation work, including the installation of engineered concrete
`
`bulkheads, was performed in Colorado, under the direct supervision of Colorado regulators, and
`
`in accordance with the express requirements of a Consent Decree entered by a Colorado court. It
`
`is undisputed that SGC’s state-sanctioned reclamation work was designed and intended to
`
`improve water quality in Colorado, and “to protect the waters of the State of Colorado.” SGC
`
`never purposefully directed any activities toward New Mexico or Utah. The capture and
`
`retention of water in Colorado for purposes of improving water quality there is not, and cannot
`
`possibly be, an activity “purposefully directed” at New Mexico or Utah.
`
`Page 10 of 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 226 Filed 10/13/20 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`Here, as each Amended Complaint and subsequent discovery responses make clear, the
`
`Plaintiffs’ causes of action and alleged injuries arise out of the events of August 5, 2015, when
`
`the United States EPA and its contractors recklessly breached a collapsed portal at the Gold King
`
`Mine and released three million gallons of mine impacted water into the Animas River. But for
`
`the inexplicable and unforeseeable actions of EPA and its contractors on August 5, 2015, SGC
`
`would not find itself as a named defendant in these actions.
`
`More importantly, the “purposeful direction” requirement for haling SGC into the courts
`
`of New Mexico and Utah is clearly missing. Once again, the “purposeful direction” requirement
`
`“ensures that a defendant will not be subject to the laws of a jurisdiction solely as a result of
`
`random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts, [or] the unilateral activity of another party or a third
`
`person….” XMission, 955 F.3d at 840 (quoting AST Sports Science, Inc. v. CLF Distrib. Ltd.,
`
`514 F.3d 1054, 1058 (10th Cir. 2008)); see also Monge v. RG Petro-Machinery (Group) Co. Ltd.,
`
`701 F.3d 598, 618 (10th Cir. 2012) (“[S]pecific jurisdiction must be based on actions by the
`
`defendant and not on events that are the result of unilateral actions taken by someone else.”)
`
`(quoting Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Heliqwest Intern., Ltd., 385 F.3d 1291, 1296 (10th Cir.
`
`2004)). The event giving rise to the claims in this litigation was the August 5, 2015 Gold King
`
`Blowout, an event caused entirely by EPA and its contractors.
`
`
`
`The bulkheads SGC installed years ago have accomplished precisely what they were
`
`designed and intended to do, retain water in Colorado and thereby improve its quality. The
`
`blowout was not of an SGC bulkhead, nor was it at any of SGC’s properties. It was the
`
`collapsed Gold King Level 7 adit. But for the unforeseeable actions of EPA and its contractors
`
`in addressing the collapsed Gold King Level 7 adit, this litigation would have never been filed.
`
`Page 11 of 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 226 Filed 10/13/20 Page 12 of 19
`
`Personal jurisdiction over SGC cannot result from the “unilateral actions” of EPA, nor from the
`
`failure of the owners of the Gold King Mine to properly maintain their mine.
`
`1.
`
`The Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries did not “arise out of” SGC’s forum-
`related activities.
`
`
`While general personal jurisdiction can rest exclusively on sufficient connections
`
`
`
`between the defendant and the forum, specific personal jurisdiction requires an additional
`
`connection, one between the defendant, the plaintiffs’ claims, and the forum. That additional
`
`requirement is what makes specific jurisdiction “case-linked.” Bristol-Myers, 137 S.Ct. at 1785.
`
`That link is missing here.
`
`
`
`The Plaintiffs’ claims do not “arise out of” the contacts SGC allegedly has with New
`
`Mexico and Utah. The “arising out of” prong of the minimum contacts analysis considers
`
`“whether a nexus exists between the Defendant’s forum-related contacts and the Plaintiff’s cause
`
`of action.” Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d 1153, 1160 (10th Cir. 2010)
`
`(quoting TH Agric. & Nutrition, LLC v. Ace European Grp. Ltd., 488 F.3d 1282, 1291 (10th Cir.
`
`2007)). As the Supreme Court has made clear, “[w]hen there is no such connection [between a
`
`defendant’s forum-related contacts and plaintiff’s claims], specific jurisdiction is lacking
`
`regardless of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State.” Old Republic, 877
`
`F.3d at 908 (quoting Bristol-Myers, 137 S.Ct. at 1781). The Plaintiffs claims are about the
`
`Blowout. SGC did not cause the Blowout, and therefore the required “link” is missing.
`
`
`
`During jurisdictional discovery, in an attempt to create personal jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs
`
`have argued that SGC historically treated water in Colorado but, following the Consent Decree
`
`and bulkhead installation, SGC stopped doing so in 2003. The Plaintiffs then contend that
`
`because water flows downhill and untreated water must be worse than treated water, there has
`
`Page 12 of 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 226 Filed 10/13/20 Page 13 of 19
`
`been a purposeful injury directed at New Mexico or Utah making jurisdiction appropriate. There
`
`are several flaws with this analysis.
`
`First, SGC’s original water treatment, and eventual cessation of that treatment, was
`
`regulated and permitted by the State of Colorado. SGC operated the Gladstone Water Treatment
`
`Plant from December 1985 through early January 2003, subject to Colorado Discharge Permit
`
`System No. CO-0027529 issued by the State of Colorado acting pursuant to its EPA-delegated
`
`water discharge permitting authority under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). SGC’s Colorado-
`
`issued CWA discharge permit authorized SGC’s pre-2003 discharge from the Sunnyside Mine in
`
`accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. SGC did not own and was not legally
`
`responsible for operating the Gladstone Water Treatment Plant after January 13, 2003, and SGC
`
`similarly did not release any waters from the Sunnyside Mine via the American Tunnel following
`
`bulkhead installation. Exhibit 4, Dep. of Larry Perino, at 56, lines 12-25.
`
`As expressly approved by Colorado regulators, and in full accordance with the terms and
`
`conditions of the court-approved Consent Decree—as well as SGC’s Colorado-issued Mine Land
`
`Reclamation Permit and Colorado’s reclamation permitting authority, in 2003, pursuant to the 4th
`
`Amendment to the Consent Decree, SGC transferred CDPS Permit No. CO-0027529 to the Gold
`
`King Mine Corporation (“GKMC”) for any residual discharges from the American Tunnel,
`
`including any discharges from the Gold King Mine. See Consent Decree, Doc. 42-1 at p. 49-54,
`
`including p. 50, ¶ 4, 51-52, ¶ 9 and 53, ¶ 2. Following the approved transfer of the American
`
`Tunnel water discharge permit, SGC’s “obligation to continue operation of the water treatment
`
`facility to treat Cement Creek or any seepage for the American Tunnel (and reclamation of the
`
`ponds and surface disturbances) will terminate ....” Id. at p. 53, ¶ 2 (emphasis added).
`
`Page 13 of 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 226 Filed 10/13/20 Page 14 of 19
`
`Even assuming arguendo that SGC had anything to do with water discharge from the
`
`American Tunnel or elsewhere after 2003 or treatment of that discharge or lack thereof, there is
`
`no evidence that any such alleged discharge or lack of water treatment caused any cognizable
`
`injuries downstream in New Mexico, or even more tenuously in Utah. Nor is there any evidence
`
`that these discharges effected an actually detectable or measurable change in the quality of
`
`downstream waters, specifically in the Animas and San Juan Rivers. In fact, it is undisputed
`
`from publicly available water quality monitoring and biennial reporting by New Mexico to EPA
`
`(as required under the CWA) that the opposite is true. The water quality at the Colorado – New
`
`Mexico border met and satisfied, and continues to meet and satisfy, all New Mexico water
`
`quality standards for metal parameters and pollutants of concern allegedly related to the residual
`
`water discharges from the American Tunnel in and after 2003, as well as all Colorado water
`
`quality standards Further, there are no CWA impaired waters listings for metals-related water
`
`quality impairments for the stream segments of the Animas River located directly upstream or
`
`downstream of the state border.
`
`The State of Colorado’s 2018 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment
`
`Report (Colorado 2018 IR) (which summarizes the quality of Colorado’s waters from July 1,
`
`2015 through June 30, 2017) and Colorado’s EPA-approved 2018 CWA § 303(d) List of
`
`Impaired Waters both reflect that the Animas River in the stream segments located directly
`
`upstream of the New Mexico-Colorado state border met all EPA-approved Colorado water
`
`quality standards. Specifically, as included in the Colorado 2018 IR, the relevant Animas River
`
`stream segments are listed as “all attaining” and “fully supporting” for all uses (Aquatic Life,
`
`Recreational, Agricultural and Water Supply). See Colorado’s 2018 Integrated Water Quality
`
`Monitoring and Assessment Report, prepared by CDPHE-WQCD pursuant to CWA §§ 303(d)
`
`Page 14 of 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 226 Filed 10/13/20 Page 15 of 19
`
`and 305(b) at p. 257, publicly available at:
`
`https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/2018%20IR.pdf. See also Colorado’s
`
`Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters, Regulation No. 93, 5 CCR 1002-93, last updated in Dec.
`
`2017 (effective 3/1/18, and as approved by EPA 8/10/18) (the “Colorado 2018 § 303d Impaired
`
`Waters List”), also publicly available at: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/impaired-
`
`waters.
`
`With the evident lack of water quality issues at the Colorado – New Mexico border as a
`
`result of SGC’s reclamation, much less miles downstream in New Mexico, it is even less
`
`credible to conclude that SGC’s reclamation activities in Colorado somehow created an even
`
`more attenuated impact in Utah that could be sufficient to create personal jurisdiction in that
`
`forum. SGC’s activities were regulated by and permitted in Colorado. To suggest that simply
`
`because water flows downhill, SGC is subject to personal jurisdiction wherever that water might
`
`flow, from Colorado to the Pacific Ocean, is to ignore the Clean Water Act’s permitting regime
`
`and the requirements of intentional conduct designed to cause injury in a neighboring state. As
`
`the Supreme Court has recognized, “The sovereignty of each State … implie[s] a limitation on
`
`the sovereignty of all its sister States.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 222 U.S.
`
`286, 293 (1980); see also Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of CA, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1780-
`
`1781 (2017).
`
`As such, and absent any discernable injuries in New Mexico or Utah connected in any
`
`way to permitted SGC discharges in Colorado, any Colorado releases cannot satisfy the
`
`“purposeful direction” requirement of the specific jurisdiction analysis. See XMission, 955 F.3d
`
`at 841 (“Purposeful direction may … be established … when an out-of-state defendant’s
`
`intentional conduct targets and has substantial harmful effects in the forum state.”) (quoting Old
`
`Page 15 of 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 226 Filed 10/13/20 Page 16 of 19
`
`Republic, 877 F.3d at 907). Here, there is no evidence that any SGC conduct had any
`
`discernable effects in New Mexico, much less a harmful effect. Nor is there evidence of any
`
`discernable effects an entire state further away in Utah.
`
`
`
`More importantly, any forum-related contacts SGC may have theoretically had with New
`
`Mexico and Utah since the early 2000’s have no connection with the claims or alleged injuries
`
`the Plaintiffs are pursuing in these lawsuits. Those claims and the alleged inju

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