Allen, Jr. v. Environmental Restoration
32f4th1239
| 10th Cir. | 2022Background:
- A blowout at the Gold King Mine in Colorado released millions of gallons of contaminated water into Cement Creek, which flows into the Animas and San Juan Rivers and into New Mexico.
- EPA conceded responsibility; multiple civil suits were filed by states, the Navajo Nation, and private plaintiffs under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and related state-law claims.
- Environmental Restoration, LLC sought consolidation of related suits into an MDL in the District of New Mexico; the Allen Plaintiffs (New Mexico landowners/ranchers) filed state-law claims (negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence) consolidated into the MDL.
- ER moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Colorado's two-year statute of limitations barred the claims; the Allen Plaintiffs argued New Mexico’s three-year statute governed.
- The district court applied New Mexico’s three-year limitations period, denied dismissal, and certified the question for interlocutory appeal; the Tenth Circuit granted review to decide which statute of limitations applies to state-law claims preserved under the CWA.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations governs state-law claims preserved by the CWA? | Forum state's SOL (New Mexico 3 years) | Point-source state's SOL (Colorado 2 years); CWA’s scheme requires applying source-state law | Point-source (Colorado) statute of limitations governs |
| If CWA preempts forum SOL, does federal 28 U.S.C. § 2462 apply? | Apply federal catch-all five-year SOL | Federal § 2462 does not govern state-law claims in diversity; apply point-source state's SOL | § 2462 does not replace point-source state SOL; state SOL of point-source state applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987) (CWA preserves certain state actions but requires applying point-source state substantive law to those claims)
- Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (1981) (CWA amendments created an all-encompassing federal program for water pollution regulation)
- CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U.S. 1 (2014) (federal statutes can preempt or displace state statutes of limitations when inconsistent)
- Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989) (predictability is a primary goal of statutes of limitation)
- Dow Chem. Corp. v. Weevil-Cide Co., Inc., 897 F.2d 481 (10th Cir. 1990) (federal court generally applies forum state's statute of limitations in diversity cases)
- Burnham v. Humphrey Hosp. Reit Trust, Inc., 403 F.3d 709 (10th Cir. 2005) (reaffirming that federal courts in diversity apply state law for statute of limitations purposes)
- Brady v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 538 F.3d 1319 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for statute-of-limitations rulings reviewed de novo)
- Cantrell v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 2021, 32 F.3d 465 (10th Cir. 1994) (recognizing need for uniformity in limitation periods for related claims)
- Pub. Int. Research Group v. Powell Duffryn Terminals Inc., 913 F.2d 64 (3d Cir. 1990) (applying federal catch-all statute of limitations to federal citizen-suit claims under the CWA)
- Sierra Club v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 834 F.2d 1517 (9th Cir. 1987) (same: federal SOL applied to federal citizen-suit claims)