Laserfiche WebLink
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT <br />We believe the district court's application of the doctrine of res judicata to <br />void CDH's (or its agency, WQCD) Administrative Decision and its Order is supported <br />by the facts and consistent with current law and policy. <br />Colorado law holds that res judicata applies to judicial actions and, in a <br />"proper case," administrative proceedings. Umberfield v. School Dist. No. 11, 185 Colo. <br />165, 522 P.2d 730, 732 (1974). Application of the doctrine to bar WQCD's civil penalty <br />proceeding is such a proper case. The district court properly considered each element <br />of the res judicata doctrine as developed in Colorado. <br />Res judicata applies "when there is in both the prior and subsequent suits <br />identity of subject matter, identity of the cause of action, identity of parties to the <br />action, and identity of capacity in the persons for which or against whom the claim is <br />made." City of Westminster v. Church, 167 Colo. 1, 9, 445 P.2d 52, 55 (1968). A final <br />judgment in the first proceeding is also required. City & County of Denver v. Block <br />173. 814 P.2d 824, 830 (Colo. 1991). The district court found that all of the above <br />elements were present to bar WQCD's claim against Mid - Continent. <br />The subject matter of the MLRD and the WQCD administrative actions and <br />the agencies' claims for relief are identical. Both agencies alleged violations for the <br />same discharge from the same Outfall No. 016, over the same period of time, and into <br />the same watercourses. The agencies exchanged water samples, for which CDH <br />performed all the laboratory analyses. Each relied on samples taken by the other <br />when charging Mid - Continent with the violations, and both cooperated extensively. <br />If some of the minor details of the agencies' allegations differed, the substance of the <br />Mid - Continent Answer Brief <br />- 15 - Appeal No. 93 CA 297 <br />