Summary
The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of Mark Cornelius's three water-rights applications for failure to prosecute. The court held that extensive failure to make required disclosures and provide substantive information could justify dismissal under C.R.C.P. 41 rather than requiring conversion to discovery sanctions under C.R.C.P. 37. The court also held that the opposers were prejudiced and that dismissal with prejudice was within the water court's discretion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the water court abused its discretion by dismissing the applications with prejudice under C.R.C.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute based on Cornelius's extensive failure to make C.R.C.P. 26(a) disclosures and provide information.
- Whether the water court was required to convert the opposers' motion to dismiss into a motion for discovery sanctions under C.R.C.P. 37.
- Whether dismissal with prejudice was improper because less drastic remedies were available, the opposers allegedly could have mitigated any prejudice, and Cornelius later obtained counsel.
Holdings
- A water court does not abuse its discretion by dismissing a case with prejudice for failure to prosecute when the applicant engages in large-scale nondisclosure and provides no substantive information about the applications beyond the initial filings.
- A water court is not required sua sponte to convert a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute into a motion for sanctions under C.R.C.P. 37 when the nondisclosure is so extensive that exclusion of the undisclosed evidence would be tantamount to dismissal.
- Dismissal with prejudice was within the water court's discretion because the opposers were prejudiced by the unreasonable delay and Cornelius's asserted mitigating circumstances did not outweigh the delay.
Key quotations
“In affirming the dismissal, we hold that a water court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing a case with prejudice when an applicant does not comply with the civil disclosure rules and fails to provide any information related to his applications other than that contained in the initial application.” (566)
“Generally, sanctions under Rule 37 should serve to cure discovery problems; however, when faced with nondisclosure as extensive as present in this case, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in ordering dismissal under Rule 41.” (571)
“Cornelius's large-scale nondisclosure and failure to provide the Opposers and water court with any information about his applications other than that contained in his initial applications constituted a failure to prosecute.” (573)
Factual background
Cornelius filed three applications seeking underground and surface water rights and approval of a plan for augmentation, proposing domestic, commercial, and livestock uses but providing little information about the intended uses, end users, wells, or access rights. The applications implicated approximately thirty wells in an overappropriated basin, and opposers and the Division Engineer raised concerns about ownership, well locations, access, injury to senior water rights, and the adequacy of the augmentation plan. Cornelius failed to file any required initial disclosures or provide substantive information beyond the applications themselves for more than a year, leaving the opposers unable to evaluate the claims or prepare for trial.
Procedural history
Cornelius filed three water-right applications in Colorado Water Division 2 in June and August 2006. After he failed to make required C.R.C.P. 26(a) disclosures or provide substantive information concerning his claims, several opposers moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The water court dismissed all three cases with prejudice on January 29, 2008. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed.