Laserfiche WebLink
NoV. <br />2. THE FACT THAT THE Two ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS <br />WERE BROUGHT PURSUANT TO DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE <br />ACTS DOES NOT PREVENT THE APPLICATION OF RES <br />JUDICATA TO WQCD's PROCEEDING <br />WQCD argues that each agency of the State of Colorado enjoys something <br />akin to individual sovereign autonomy. This is simply not the case. The fact that <br />administrative civil penalty proceedings were brought pursuant to different legislative <br />acts does not alter the res judicata doctrine when the State had already acted, sought <br />and obtained civil penalty relief based on the same injury. <br />Contrary to WQCD's argument, the Colorado Supreme Court has adopted the <br />"transactional approach" to res judicata. "The `same claim or cause of action' <br />Mid - Continent Answer Brief <br />requirement is bounded by the injury for which relief is demanded, and not by the <br />legal theory on which the person asserting the claim relies." State Eng'r v. Smith <br />Cattle. Inc., 780 P.2d 546, 549 (Colo. 1989) (citing 1B J. MOORE ET AL., MOORE'S <br />FEDERAL PRACTICE 11 0.410(1) (2d ed. 1988)). See also Lehr v. Guild, 71 Colo. 349, 206 <br />P. 803 (1922). <br />The issue of finding identical causes of action even under different statutory <br />claims was addressed in Davis v. United States Steel Supply, 688 F.2d 166, 171 (3rd <br />Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1014, 103 S. Ct. 1256, 75 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1993): <br />More difficult is the question of identity of the causes of action. A <br />single cause of action may comprise claims under a number of different <br />statutory and common law grounds. [Citations omitted.] Rather than <br />resting on the specific legal theory invoked, res judicata generally is <br />thought to turn on the essential similarity of the underlying events giving <br />rise to the various legal claims, although a clear definition of that requisite <br />similarity has proven elusive. [Citations omitted.] <br />Davis was a reversal of a judgment in favor of an employee against her <br />- 23 - Appeal No. 93 CA 297 <br />