Laserfiche WebLink
That point established, the question becomes whether either the <br /> DMG or the WQCD had an opportunity to litigate the violations <br /> charged in the WQCD' s NOV. To this missing condition CDH turns <br /> next . <br /> B. MCR Fails to Demonstrate that the State <br /> of Colorado Had an Opportunity to Litigate <br /> the WQCD' s NOV. <br /> As discussed in CDH' s Opening Brief, given the statutory <br /> framework under which the WQCD and the DMG operate, the WQCD' s <br /> NOV and the DMG' s NOV could not have been litigated in the same <br /> forum. See Opening Brief at pp. 26-28 . MCR does not dispute <br /> this fact . Under binding Colorado case law, the District Court ' s <br /> decision must be reversed based on this undisputed fact . <br /> In its Answer Brief, MCR argues that the fact that the <br /> WQCD' s NOV could not have been litigated does not matter . <br /> Bootstrapping its identity of causes of action argument to jus- <br /> tify the doctrine' s application in the absence of an opportunity <br /> to litigate, MCR concludes that "the State of Colorado had an ad- <br /> equate opportunity to litigate the discharge from the Outfall No. <br /> 016 . " See Answer Brief at 40-41 . <br /> Contrary to MCR' s theory, the "opportunity to litigate" <br /> required by established case law requires an opportunity to liti- <br /> gate all of a party ' s claims and legal theories and not just <br /> -9- <br />