DISTRICTCOURT,LARIMERCOUNTY,COLORADO
201LaPorteAvenue,Suite100
DATE FILED: March 13, 2014 4:42 PM
FortCollins,Colorado80521
FILING ID: 53528B2963CAC
CASE NUMBER: 2013CV31385
Tel:970.494.3500
Plaintiff:
COLORADOOIL&GASASSOCIATION
v.
Defendant:
COURTUSEONLY
CITYOFFORTCOLLINS,COLORADO
CaseNumber:
2013CV31385
AttorneysforCitizensforaHealthyFortCollins,Sierra
Club,andEarthworks(“MeasureProponents”)
Name:
KevinLynch(Atty.Reg.#39873)
Div:Civ
ElizabethKutch(StudentAttorney)
TimothyO’Leary(StudentAttorney) Ctrm:5B
GinaTincher(StudentAttorney)
Address:
2255E.EvansAvenue,Suite335
Denver,CO80208
PhoneNumber:303.871.6140
FAXNumber:303.871.6847
E‐mail:[email protected]
MEASUREPROPONENTS’REPLYTOCOGA’SRESPONSEINOPPOSITIONTO
INTERVENTION
MeasureProponentsareentitledtointerveneinthiscaseaccordingtoColo.
R.Civ.P.24(a)(2)&(b)(2).ContrarytotheColoradoOilandGasAssociation’s
(“COGA”)assertion,MeasureProponentshaveauniqueandconcreteinterestthat
theCitydoesnotadequatelyrepresent.Theindividualmembersfearfortheir
personalhealth,thehealthoftheirlovedones,andtheirpropertyvalue.COGA
makesmuchofMeasureProponentsbeingcitizensofacityandassertsothersin
FortCollinsmayalsofeeltheeffectsoffracking.COGAcitesacasewherethecourt
deniedinterventionbecauseastaxpayers,theproposedintervenorshadgeneralized
interestssharedbyall.COGAthenreferencescaseswherebusinessinterests
satisfiedinterventionrequirements.Ascitizenswhosepersonalhealth,safety,and
propertyarethreatened,MeasureProponentshavejustasmucharightto
intervene,ifnotmore,thanacompanywithabusinessinterest.Notably,COGAdoes
notciteasinglecaseinwhichcourtsdeniedinterventiontotheballotproponents.
Furthermore,MeasureProponents’interestintheFrackingMoratorium
wouldbesubstantiallyimpairedifthisCourtoverturnsthecitizens’democratic
vote.AnadverserulingwillexposeMeasureProponentstotheunknown
consequencesoffracking.
Finally,theCityofFortCollins(“City”)cannotrepresentMeasure
Proponents’individualinterestsbecauseithasadutytorepresentallinterests
withintheCity.WhiletheCity’sinterestsaresimilartotheMeasureProponents’,the
City’spastactionsindicatetheCitybelievesitsinterestswouldbebetterservedif
theFrackingMoratoriumwerenotenacted.NowthattheFrackingMoratoriumhas
beenenacted,theCitycannotadequatelyrepresenttheMeasureProponents’
individualinterestsbecauseMeasureProponents’interestsaredifferentthanthose
ofthecommunityasawhole.Notably,theCityhasnotexpressedthattheywould
representtheMeasureProponents’interests.
Alternatively,MeasureProponents’interventionwouldnotcomplicateor
delaythiscase’sresolutionbyinjectingcollateralandextrinsicissues.COGA
suggeststhattheCityadequatelyrepresentstheMeasureProponents’interests,
whilealsoassertingthatallowingtheMeasureProponentstointervenewillcause
unduedelay.However,preemptioninColoradoisanadhocdeterminationand
MeasureProponentswillmakeargumentsnecessarytoanalyzethepreemption
claims,specificallyifitisamatteroflocal,mixed,orstateconcern.Therefore,ifthe
CityadequatelyrepresentsMeasureProponentsinterests,thentheMeasure
Proponentspermissiveinterventionwillnotdelaythecase.
Inlightofthesereasons,MeasureProponentsrespectfullyrequesttheCourt
toadmitthemasintervenorsasamatterofrightor,alternatively,aspermissive
intervenors.
Argument
MeasureProponents(I)haveauniqueinterest(II)thattheCitydoesnot
adequatelyrepresent.MeasureProponentsalso(III)willnotinterjectnewissuesor
createanunduedelayinlitigation.
I.MEASUREPROPONENTSHAVEAUNIQUEINTERESTINTHEFRACKING
MORATORIUMTHATADECLARATORYJUDGMENTWILLAFFECT.
MeasureProponentsareconcernedwiththeirownhealth,safety,and
propertyvalues,givingthemauniqueinterestinthemoratoriumbeyondthe
averagecitizenofFortCollins.ManyoftheMeasureProponentsfearfortheirhealth
andpropertyvaluesbecauseoftheirproximitytoproposedwells.Somearewithin
eyesightofthesewells,whileotherscansmellthefumeswhenthewindblows.
GiddensAff.¶8;HollemanAff.¶3.Justastheproximitytowellswillincrease
negativehealtheffects,somestudiesshowadecreaseinhomevalueslocatednear
wells.SeeDavidKelly,StudyShowsAirEmissionsNearFrackingSitesMayPose
2
HealthRisk,CUNewsroom,Mar.19,2012,availableat
http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/health‐impacts‐
of‐fracking‐emissions.aspx;seealsoRogerDrouin,HowtheFrackingBoomCould
LeadtoaHousingBust,AtlanticCities,Aug.19,2013,availableat
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/08/how‐fracking‐boom‐could‐
lead‐housing‐bust/6588/.Livingclosetotheexistingandproposedwellswilllikely
decreaseMeasureProponents’propertyvalues.
Propertyrightsandhealthconcernsprovidesufficientinterestsfor
interventionasofright.Aspropertyowners,MeasureProponentshaveaunique
interest,whichtheColoradoSupremeCourthasrecognizedisdistinctfromthe
generalpublic.InRoosevelt,thecourtallowedpartiestointerveneasofright
becausetheywerepropertyownersintheaffectedareawhoseintereststhelocal
governmentdidnotadequatelyrepresent.Rooseveltv.BeauModeCo.384P.2d96,
100(Colo.1963).Similarly,inDillon,thecourtgrantedinterventionbecausethe
proposedintervenorslivednearthepropertythatthecityconsideredrezoning.
DillonCos.v.CityofBoulder,515P.2d627,629(Colo.1973).Thecourtnotedthata
landownerwholivesinanareasoughttoberezonedmeetstherequirementunder
C.R.C.P.24(a)(2)of“aninterestrelatingtothepropertyortransactionwhichisthe
subjectoftheaction.”Id.at628.Thecourtfurthercommentedthat“[t]heruledoes
notrequirean‘interestintheproperty’butan‘interestrelatingtotheproperty,’”
anddeterminedthatintervenorslivingoverthreeblocksawayhadan“interest”to
satisfyintervention.Id.at628‐29.
COGAerroneouslydeclaresthatMeasureProponents’interestsintheir
personalwell‐beingandpropertyvaluesstemmingfromtheirproximitytowellsare
“generalized”interestssharedwitheveryoneinFortCollins.COGAResp.4.For
instance,COGApointstoDenverChapterofColoradoMotelAss’nv.CityandCountyof
Denver,374P.2d494(Colo.1962),toshowthattaxpayershadageneralized
interestinthelawsuittointerveneismisplaced.SeeCOGAResp.4.Coloradohas
treatedtaxpayerswhoseektointerveneinlawsuitsasaseparateclass.InRoosevelt,
thecourtdistinguishedintervenorswhowerepropertyownersfrompeopletrying
tointerveneastaxpayers.Roosevelt,384P.2dat101.
InMotelAss’nv.Denver,supra,wehavepartiesseekingtointerveneas
taxpayers.Astaxpayers,theyoccupiedaverydifferentpositionthan
thatofintervenorshere,whodonotseekinterventionastaxpayers,
butaspropertyownerswhowillbedirectlyaffectedbytheoutcome
ofthelitigation.Theinterestsofalltaxpayersarethesame,hencethe
ruledenyingintervention.Theinterestsofpropertyownersinzoning
mattersareoftenverydivergentanddifferonefromtheother,and
maywellsanctionindividualrepresentationbydifferentcounsel.
Id.MeasureProponentsarenottryingtointerveneastaxpayers.Rather,theyare
propertyownersseekingtoprotectboththeirhealthandpropertyvalues.
AnalogoustothezoningordinanceinRoosevelt,themoratoriumisavaliduseofthe
3
City’szoningpower.Therefore,MeasureProponents’interventionisappropriateso
theywillhavetheopportunitytodefendtheirinterests.
COGAalsoreliesonWestlandsWaterDist.v.UnitedStates,700F.2d561(9th
Cir.1983),andcomparesMeasureProponentstotheenvironmentalgroupinthat
casewhohadaninterestinwaterquality.COGAResp.5‐6.Thecourtdenied
interventioninWestlandsbecauseitfoundthattheenvironmentalgroup’sinterests
werenotdistinctfromtherestofthestateandtheinterestswerenotfoundedon
thecontractsatissuebutratheronpublicpolicy.Westlands,700F.2dat563.
MeasureProponents’uniqueinterestsintheirhealth,safety,andpropertyvaluesdo
bearonalegalissueinthiscase‐whetherstatelawpreemptsthemoratorium.As
describedinmoredetailbelow,MeasureProponents’uniqueandconcreteinterests
arenecessarytodetermineifthemoratoriumisalocal,state,oramixedissue.See
Webbv.CityofBlackHawk,295P.3d480,486‐87(Colo.2013).
Inadditiontotheirhealth,safety,andpropertyinterests,Measure
Proponentsalsohaveaninterestindefendingameasurethattheydedicatedtheir
time,energy,andmoneytoenact.HollemanAff.¶5‐7.Courtshaverecognized
supportinglegislationasaninterestadequatetosupportintervention.
AnorganizationliketheGrouphasasufficientinteresttosupport
intervention by right where the underlying action concerns
legislation previously supported by the organization. This is
particularly true where, as here, the personal interests of its
members in the continued environmental quality of the area and
the continued rural character of East Hampton would be
threatened if the Superstore Law is found to be invalid or
unconstitutional and A & P proceeds with development of its
plannedmarket.
GreatAtl.&Pac.TeaCo.,Inc.v.TownofE.Hampton,178F.R.D.39,42(E.D.N.Y.
1998).InTownofEastHampton,thecourtfound“supportinglegislation”by
attendinghearingsandurgingtheadoptionofalawthroughtestimonyand
commentwassufficienttoconveyaninterestforintervention.Id.at41‐42.Similar
totheintervenorsinTownofEastHampton,MeasureProponentssupportedthe
ordinanceattheheartofthislitigationandhaveacontinuedinterestinthe
protectionthemoratoriumaffords.UnlikeTownofEastHampton,theMeasure
ProponentssponsoredtheFrackingMoratoriumasaballotmeasure.
Inadditiontosupportingthemoratorium,MeasureProponentscampaigned
forthevoteofthepeopleandcoordinatedthedesign,printing,andsubmissionof
thepetitionforthemoratorium.GiddensAff.¶4.Infact,theNinthCircuithas
recognized“avirtualperserulethatthesponsorsofaballotinitiativehavea
sufficientinterestinthesubjectmatteroflitigationconcerningthatinitiativeto
intervenepursuanttoFed.R.Civ.P.24(a).”Yniguezv.Arizona,939F.2d727,735
(9thCir.1991);seealsoWashingtonStateBldg.andConst.TradesCouncilAFL‐CIOv.
4
Spellman,684F.2d627,629‐30(9thCir.1982)(holdingthatdenialofmotionto
intervenewaserrorwhereproposedintervenorswerepublicinterestgroupthat
sponsoredtheinitiative).Assupportersandsponsorsofthemoratorium,Measure
Proponentssatisfytheinterestprongforintervention.1
Lastly,adecisioninthiscasewillimpairMeasureProponents’interests.
COGAbrieflyassertsthelitigationwillnotimpairMeasureProponents’interests.
SeeCOGAResp.3.However,interventionisMeasureProponents’onlychanceto
defendtheirhealth,safety,andpropertyvaluesbecauseadeterminationbythe
CourtthatthemoratoriumispreemptedwouldleaveMeasureProponentswithout
recourse.Feiginestablishedthatproposedintervenorssatisfytheimpairmentprong
ofinterventionwhen“[a]nintervenor’sinterestisimpairedifthedispositionofthe
actioninwhichinterventionissoughtwillpreventanyfutureattemptsbythe
applicanttopursuehisinterest.”Feiginv.AlexaGrp.,Ltd.,19P.3d23,30(Colo.
2001).WhendenyinginterventioninFeigin,thecourtnotedthattheproposed
intervenorscouldbringacivilsuitagainstthedefendantsinthecasetorecover
theirdamages.Id.UnliketheproposedintervenorsinFeigin,theinjuriesthatthe
MeasureProponentscouldsufferarenotlimitedtomonetarylosses.Thatis,the
MeasureProponentswanttopreventharmstotheirhealththatcouldnotbe
remediedbyanafter‐the‐factlawsuit.
II.THEMEASUREPROPONENTS'INTERESTSARENOTADEQUATELY
REPRESENTEDBYTHECITY.
InColorado,thereisapresumptioninfavorofinterventionwhenparties’
interestsaresimilarbutnotidentical,asisthecasewithMeasureProponentsand
theCity.COGAsuggeststhatbecausetheCityandMeasureProponentswishforthe
sameoutcomeinthecase,theCourtshouldpresumeadequaterepresentation.
However,theColoradoSupremeCourtrecentlystated:
[1] If the interest of the absentee is not represented at all, or if all
existingpartiesareadversetotheabsentee,thenthereisnoadequate
1COGA’srelianceonHollingsworthv.Perry,133S.Ct.2652(2013),ismisplaced.
COGAResp.6.TheCourtinHollingsworthanalyzedwhetherapartysatisfiedfederal
standingrequirementsforanappealandnottheinterestprongofintervention.
Standingandinterventionareseparateanalyses.Art.IIIstandingrequirementsare
morestringent.SeeYniguez,939F.2dat735.CompareC.R.C.P.24(a)(“[W]henthe
applicantclaimsaninterestrelatingtothepropertyortransactionwhichisthe
subjectoftheactionandheissosituatedthatthedispositionoftheactionmayasa
practicalmatterimpairorimpedehisabilitytoprotectthatinterest...”)with
Wimberlyv.Ettenberg,570P.3d535,538(Colo.1977)(holdingthatthestanding
inquiryrequiresseeing“(1)whethertheplaintiffwasinjuredinfact,(2)whether
theinjurywastoalegallyprotectedright.”).
5
representation. [2] On the other hand, if the absentee’s interest is
identical to that of one of the present parties, or if there is a party
charged by law with representing the absentee's interest, than a
compelling showing should be required to demonstrate why this
representation is not adequate. [3] But if the absentee's interest is
similar to, but not identical with, that of one of the parties, a
discriminating judgment is required on the circumstances of the
particular case, although intervention ordinarily should be allowed
unlessitisclearthatthepartywillprovideadequaterepresentationfor
theabsentee.
CherokeeMetro.Dist.v.MeridianServ.Metro.Dist.,266P.3d401,407(Colo.2011)
(quoting7CCharlesAlanWright,ArthurR.Miller,MaryKayKane&RichardL.
Marcus,FederalPracticeandProcedure§1909(3ded.1997))(alterationsin
original)."WrightandMillersuggestthatinthethirdcategory,'allreasonable
doubtsshouldberesolvedinfavoroftheabsentee...tointervene....'"Id.While
MeasureProponents’interestsaresimilartotheCity’s,theyarenotidentical.
MeasureProponentsareinterestedintheirpersonalhealth,privateproperty,and
preservingthemoratorium.TheCity’sinterestsconsistofprotectingitsauthority,
preservinglocalcontrol,andrepresentingthecommunityinterest.Becausethese
interestsarenotidentical,MeasureProponentsoccupythethirdcategory.2
Individualinterestsandtheinterestsofacommunityarenotalwaysaligned.
TheCityhasadutytoprotectandrepresentthebroadpublicinterest.UtahAss’nof
Cntysv.Clinton,255F.3d1246,1255(10thCir.2001).TheMeasureProponentsare
narrowlyfocusedonprotectingtheirmembers'health,safety,andproperty,which
iscurrentlysafeguardedbythemoratorium.SeeRonHollemanAff.Therefore,the
City'sdutytoaccountforthebroadpublicinterestpreventsitfromadequately
representingMeasureProponents.
TheCityhasnotaffirmativelystatedthatitwilladequatelyrepresent
MeasureProponents’interests.Infact,theCityhastakennopositiononthe
MeasureProponents’intervention.“[Thegovernment’s]silenceonanyintentto
defendthe[intervenors’]specialinterestsisdeafening.”UtahAss’s255F.3dat1256
(quotingConservationLawFound.v.Mosbacher,966F.2d39,44(1stCir.1992))
2COGA’srelianceonUtahAss’n,255F.3d1246,becausethatcaseaddresseda
specificpieceofproperty,whereasthefrackingmoratoriumaddressestheentire
CityofFortCollins,ispuzzling.COGAResp.9‐10.UtahAss’ninvolvedtheGrand
EscalanteNationalMonument,anareaencompassing1.7millionacresoflandnot
ownedbytheproposedintervenors.Inthatcase,thecourtgrantedintervention
basedonintervenors’useofpubliclands.Incontrast,theMeasureProponentsown
propertynearpotentialfrackingsiteswheretheyseeksimplytolivewithoutthreats
totheirhealthandsafetyfromfracking.
6
(secondalterationinoriginal).COGAandtheCourtcannotpresumetheCitywill
adequatelyrepresenttheMeasureProponents’interestsabsentaclearshowing.
COGAalsoreliesonMotelAss’nandFeigintoassertthat“absenta‘compelling
showing’tothecontrary,thereisapresumptionthat‘[r]epresentationbythe
governmentalauthoritiesisconsideredadequate.’”COGAResp.6‐7.ButinRoosevelt,
theColoradoSupremeCourtdistinguishedtaxpayerinterventionfromproperty
ownerintervention.See384P.2dat101.MeasureProponentsdonotwishto
interveneastaxpayersbutaspropertyownersthatarecurrentlyprotectedbythe
FrackingMoratorium.NotunlikeCOGA,MeasureProponentsseektoprotecttheir
members’individualinterestsandrightsinthiscase.But,unlikeCOGA,Measure
Proponentshavesuppliedsupportingaffidavitsdetailinghealthandproperty
concernsbasedonproximitytoproposedwells.SeeSanJuanCnty.,Utahv.United
States,503F.3d1163,1172(10thCir.2011);seealsoLobatov.State,218P.3d358,
368(Colo.2009)(holdingthatstandingofsimilarlysituatedpartiesneednotbe
determinedbecauseCourt’ssubjectmatterjurisdictionisestablished).
InFeigintheindividualswereseekingtointerveneinanactionwherethe
governmentbroughtacivilactionagainstthedefendantsforengineeringa“Ponzi”
scheme.Feigin,19P.3dat24.There,thecourtheldthat“[n]oadversityofinterests
exists”betweenthestateandtheintervenors.Id.at32.Here,theCity’sandthe
MeasureProponents’interestshavebeenatoddsinthepastandMeasure
Proponentscontinuetotakeverydifferentpositionsconcerningcommunity
developmentmatters.Forexample,theCitydidnotsupporttheFracking
Moratoriumbecause,
the Ballot Measure in October 2013 was due to the fact that the
initiativewas“underthesecircumstances...unnecessary,”thatitwas
“not in the best interests of the City, and [that it] could result in
litigationthat,ifnotresolvedintheCity’sfavor,couldnotonlywork
forthedetrimentoftheCity,butcouldalsoestablishlegalprecedents
that would be damaging to the interests of other Colorado
municipalities.”
COGAResp.11(citingCityofFortCollinsRes.2013‐085).Despitetheseconcerns,
MeasureProponentscontinuedtoadvocatefortheFrackingMoratoriumbecause
theydeterminedthatitwasnecessarytoprotecttheirindividualhealthand
property.
Finally,COGAheavilyreliesonTownofEastHamptontoassertthattheCity
adequatelyrepresentsMeasureProponents’interests.However,Coloradocaselaw
statesthatthestandardappliedtodetermineifapartyisadequatelyrepresentedis
thetestarticulatedinCherokee.Underthistest,MeasureProponents’interestsare
similarto,butnotidentical,withtheCity’sbecausetheMeasureProponents’
interestsareintheirpersonalhealthandproperty,nottheentirecommunity’swell‐
being.
7
III.MEASUREPROPONENTSSHOULDBEGRANTEDPERMISSIVE
INTERVENTIONUNDERC.R.C.P.24(b)(2)
Asdemonstratedintheprevioussection,theCitydoesnotadequately
representtheMeasureProponents’interestsinthiscase.However,evenifthe
Courtdeniesinterventionofright,theMeasureProponentsshouldbeallowedto
presentadefenseoftheFrackingMoratoriumtheyadvocatedforandpassedover
objectionsofthecitycouncil.Withouttheirparticipation,thevotesofover45,000
citizensofFortCollinswillbeleftinthehandsofthesameCityCouncilthaturged
voterstorejectthemeasure.MeasureProponentsparticipationwillnotdelayor
addexpensetothecase,butwillinsteadhelptoensureafairandfullhearingonthe
issue.
AllowingtheMeasureProponentstointerveneinthismatterwillnotextend
thetimeforatrialorcausesubstantialpre‐trialdiscovery.COGAsuggeststhatthe
CityadequatelyrepresentstheMeasureProponents’interestsinthismatter.COGA
thenclaimsthatallowingtheMeasureProponentstointervenewillcauseundue
delay,anincreaseincostsandburdensfortheparties,andwillsignificantlydelay
theresolutionofthecase.COGAResp.14.However,iftheCityadequately
representstheinterestsoftheMeasureProponents,theCourtshouldexpectthat
theywouldcallthesametypesandnumbersofwitnessesandprovidethesame
typesandamountofevidencethattheMeasureProponentswouldifadmittedto
thiscase.Assuch,COGA’sargumentthatMeasureProponents’interventionwill
causeunduedelayisinconsistentwithitspositionthattheCityadequately
representsMeasureProponent’sinterests.
MeasureProponentsagreethatpreemptionisacentralissueinthiscase.
However,inordertodeterminethepreemptionissue,theCourtwillberequiredto
conductananalysisofwhetherthemoratoriumrepresentsalocal,mixed,orstate
issue.ByincludinginformationintheMotiontoInterveneabouttheexplosionofoil
andgasdrillingoccurringinColorado,theMeasureProponentsseektodemonstrate
thelocalinterestatstakeinthiscase.TheColoradoSupremeCourthasdenounced
“acategoricalapproachtothedeterminationofthatwhichisgeneralandstate‐
wide.”SeeCity&Cnty.ofDenverv.Pike,140Colo.17,23(1959).“Instead,it
recognizedthehighdegreeofimportanceofthefactsandcircumstancesofthe
particularcaseinmakingtherequireddetermination.”Id.
TheissuespresentedbytheMeasureProponentsareneithernew,nor
extrinsic‐theyarerelevanttotheanalysisofpreemptioninthiscase.InNorth
PoudreIrrigationCo.v.Hinderlider,112Colo.467,475‐76(1944),theColorado
SupremeCourtupheldtheLarimerCountyDistrictCourt’sdecisiontoallowthe
permissiveinterventionofjuniorwaterappropriatorsdespitethefactthatthey
wereneither“necessary”nor“essential”becausetheirparticipationallowedthe
courttohaveamorecomprehensiveunderstandingofthematter.Id.Similarly,the
8
participationoftheMeasureProponentswillallowtheCourttohaveamore
comprehensiveunderstandingofthelocalnatureofthemoratorium.
COGAclaimsthattheCourtshoulddenythemotionforpermissive
interventionunderGrijalvav.Elkins,287P.2d970,972(Colo.1955),andMorenov.
CommercialSec.Bank,240P.2d118,119(Colo.1952).InGrijalva,thecourtdenied
interventionbecausetheapplicantswaiteduntiltheeveoftrialtosubmittheir
applicationsforintervention.Thecourtfoundthattheinjectionofthesenewclaims,
thougharisingoutofthesameaccident,indicatedtheapplicantsweresimply
hopingtousetheevidentiaryrecordofthemainpartiestotheiradvantage.Grijalva,
287P.2dat972.Here,therehasbeennodiscoveryortrialdateset.Therefore,
COGAcannotassertthattheMeasureProponentsaretryingtotakeadvantageofthe
evidentiaryrecordinthiscaseandnoinjusticehasoccurred.
WhiletheColoradoSupremeCourthasstatedthatcourtshaveadutyto
respecttheissuesraisedbytheoriginalparties,Morenoinvolvedataxpayerwho
attemptedtointerveneinacaseinwhichabanksuedforadeterminationofthe
properdispositionofmoneyheldbytheCityofPueblopursuanttoanordinance.
SeeMoreno,240P.2dat119.Theordinanceinquestionhadpreviouslybeen
challengedbythesameindividualwholatertriedtointerveneinMoreno.Thecourt
hadthusalreadysettledthequestionofwhethertheordinancewasvalid.Therefore,
Morenoisnotapplicabletothesecircumstances.Here,MeasureProponentshave
notintroducedneworextrinsicissues.Asexplainedabove,Colorado’spreemption
analysisisanadhocdeterminationmadeonacase‐by‐casebasisonafully
developedevidentiaryrecord.Webb,295P.3dat486‐87.3Therefore,Measure
ProponentsdonotseektousetheCourtasaforumtodebatefracking,butinstead
wishtoaddnecessaryfactualrichnesstotheadjudication.
COGAchallengesthemoratoriumonstatepreemptiongrounds.TheMeasure
Proponentsintendtodefendonthosegrounds.Therefore,theMeasureProponents
meettherequirementthatanapplicant’s“claimordefenseandthemainactionhave
aquestionoflaworfactincommon.”C.R.C.P.24(b)(2).AccordingtoMoore's
FederalPractice,6‐24§24.11,thephrase“questionoflaworfactincommon”
shouldbereadinthedisjunctive.Thatis,theMeasureProponentsneedonlyshow
thattheyhaveaquestionoflaworaquestionoffactincommonwiththemain
actionandtheirclaimsordefenses.MeasureProponentsmeetthisminimalburden.
TheMeasureProponentsagreethatmainissueiswhethertheColoradoOilandGas
ConservationActpreemptsatemporarylocalfrackingmoratorium.
3COGAassertsthattheMeasureProponentshaveinjectedstandingasanewor
extrinsicissuenotraisedbytheCityinitsAnswer.However,onpg.5oftheCity’s
Answer,itsfourthaffirmativedefensestates,“Plaintiff’sclaimsarebarredinwhole
orinpartbyalackofstanding.”
9
AllowingtheMeasureProponentstointerveneinthismatterwouldinno
way“openthefloodgates”tootherpartiesfilingmotionstointerveneinthiscase.
TheCourtneedonlylookatthevariousfracking‐relatedcasescurrentlybeing
litigatedinColoradotoseethatwhenthecourtshaveallowedinterventionofa
citizengroup,ithasnotledtoadditionalmotionstointervenebeingfiled.See
ColoradoOilandGasAss’nv.CityofLongmont,2013CV63(DistrictCourtofBoulder
County);seealsoColoradoOilandGasConservationComm’nv.CityofLongmont,
2012CV702(DistrictCourtofBoulderCounty).
MuchlikeCOGAandtheCity,theMeasureProponentshaveaninterestin
judicialeconomyandthepromptadjudicationofthismatter.TheMeasure
Proponentsarecomprisedofthreeseparategroupsthatcouldhaveindividually
filedmotionsforinterventioninthiscase.However,inanefforttostreamlinethe
processforallpartiesinvolved,MeasureProponentschosetofileforintervention
jointly.TheMeasureProponentshavenointentiontojoinotherparties,tofile
unnecessarymotions,ordelaytheprogressionofthislitigation.
Therefore,theMeasureProponentsrespectfullyrequesttheCourtenteran
ordergrantingtheminterventionbyrightinthisactionasdefendants.
Alternatively,iftheCourtdeniesthisrequest,theMeasureProponentsrequestthat
theCourtgrantthempermissiveintervention.
DATEDthis13thdayofMarch,2014.
Respectfullysubmitted,
/s/KevinLynch___________________________
KevinLynch(Professorand
SupervisingAttorneyCOBarNo.39873)
ElizabethKutch,StudentAttorney
TimothyO’Leary,StudentAttorney
GinaTincher,StudentAttorney
CounselforProposedIntervenors:Citizens
foraHealthyFortCollins,SierraClub,and
Earthworks
ThisdocumentwasfiledelectronicallypursuanttoC.R.C.P.121§1‐26.Theoriginal
signeddocumentisonfilewiththeUniversityofDenverEnvironmentalLawClinic.
10
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
Iherebycertifythatonthis13thdayofMarch,2014,atrueandcorrectcopy
oftheaboveandforegoingMEASUREPROPONENTS’MOTIONTOINTERVENE
wasservedviatheIntegratedColoradoCourtsE‐FilingSystem(ICCES),on:
MarkJ.Matthews
JohnV.McDermott
WayneF.Forman
MichaelD.Hoke
BrownsteinHyattFarberSchreck,LLP
410SeventeethStreet,Suite2200
Denver,CO80202
AttorneysforthePlaintiff,ColoradoOilandGasAssociation
StephenJ.Roy
CityAttorney
CityHallWest
300LaPorteAvenue
P.O.Box580
FortCollins,CO80521
BarbaraJ.B.Green
JohnT.Sullivan
SullivanGreenSeavyLLC
3223ArapahoeAvenue,Suite300
Boulder,CO80303
AttorneysfortheDefendant,CityofFortCollins
/s/ KevinLynch________________________________
11