Continental Resources v. N.D. Dep't. of Environmental Quality
- Continental Resources, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellant
North Dakota Department of
Environmental Quality, Defendant and Appellee
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : OTHER (Civil)
- Appeal From
Case No. 2018-CV-02160
South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Bruce A. Romanick
Parties' Statement of Issues
[¶ 1] Whether the Court erred in finding that the United States Environmental Protection Agency was an indispensable party pursuant to N.D.R.Civ.P. 19 and N.D.C.C. § 32-23-11 where no challenge to the State Implementation Plan approval was alleged.
[¶ 2] Whether the Court erred in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant Section 307(b)(l) of the Federal Clean Air Act when the action sought only the Court’s interpretation of a state regulation.
[¶ 3] Whether the Court erred in finding that Continental Resources, Inc.’s action for declaratory judgment was not ripe for judicial determination, despite Continental Resources, Inc.’s good faith allegation that the seeds of a controversy exist at over 1000 facilities.
1. Whether Continental Resources, Inc.’s appeal is based on the flawed premise that the Department1 changed its interpretation and application of the Rule when instead it is Continental Resources, Inc.’s requested declaration that would change the meaning of a United States Environmental Protection Agency-approved rule, and weaken North Dakota’s state implementation plan.
2. Whether the District Court acted within its discretion by dismissing Continental Resources, Inc.’s complaint under Rules 12(b)(7) and 19 because the United States Environmental Protection Agency is a required and indispensable party.
3. Whether the District Court correctly dismissed Continental Resources, Inc.’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim under N.D.C.C. § 32-23-11 because the United States Environmental Protection Agency cannot be made a party.
4. Whether the District Court correctly dismissed Continental Resources, Inc.’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the federal Clean Air Act vests exclusive jurisdiction with the federal appellate courts.
5. Whether the District Court correctly dismissed Continental Resources, Inc.’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim because the action is not ripe.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||03/18/2019||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 03/18/2019|
|2||03/18/2019||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT (transcript already filed in trial court record)|
|3||03/19/2019||ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION : VandeWalle, Gerald W.|
|4||03/19/2019||ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION : Tufte, Jerod E.|
|5||03/19/2019||Received $125 filing fee|
|6||03/21/2019||Corrected Order for Transcript|
|7||03/26/2019||Affidavit of Jason B. Hutt in support of Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice|
|8||03/26/2019||Affidavit of Matthew G. Paulson in support of Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice|
|9||04/02/2019||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED DECEMBER 3, 2018|
|10||04/02/2019||C.O.S. FOR TRANSCRIPT|
|11||04/17/2019||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED APRIL 16, 2019 (ENTRY NOS. 1 - 70)|
|12||04/26/2019||Rec'd noncompliant ATB (asked for corrections).|
|14||04/29/2019||MOTION FOR Substitution of Party|
|15||04/30/2019||ACTION BY CLERK|
|16||05/01/2019||Rec'd $35.50 surcharge for ATA overage (Receipt No 27034)|
|18||05/02/2019||Oral Argument Request by Appellant|
|19||05/08/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATB/ATA from Central Duplicating|
|22||06/07/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of AEB and AEA from Central Duplicating|
|23||06/07/2019||Rec'd Not. of Appear. from Jennifer L.Verleger, in addition to Margaret Olson, counsel for Appellee|
|24||06/11/2019||Appellant submits 28(k) letter (stricken on June 19, 2019)|
|25||06/11/2019||Appellee's letter requesting the Court to reject 28(k) letter|
|26||06/13/2019||Appellant's response to Appellee's request to reject 28(k) letter|
|27||06/17/2019||REPLY BRIEF (withdrawn - portions stricken)|
|28||06/19/2019||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (28(k) letter stricken) - Granted|
|29||06/20/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of RYB from Central Duplicating|
|30||06/24/2019||MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF REPLY BRIEF|
|31||06/26/2019||APPELLANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE w/ exhibit|
|32||06/27/2019||Replacement Exhibit A to Response in Opposition to Motion to Strike|
|33||06/28/2019||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (strike reply brief portions - new reply brief required) - Granted|
|34||07/09/2019||Corrected Reply Brief||View|
|35||07/17/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of RYB back from Central Duplicating|
|36||07/18/2019||NOTICE OF MOOTNESS & MOTION FOR DISMISSAL - RspDue : 08/02/2019|
|37||08/02/2019||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|38||08/02/2019||Response Filed to Notice of Mootness & Motion to Dismiss|
|39||08/07/2019||Motion of Mootness/Motion for Dismissal and Response To Be Considered With the Merits|
|40||08/07/2019||MOTION FOR Pro Hac Vice Admission and Affidavit Kevin M. Voelkel|
|41||08/07/2019||ACTION BY CLERK (Voelkel authorized to appear) - Granted|
|42||08/12/2019||SITTING WITH THE COURT : El-Dweek, Daniel Saleh|
|43||08/12/2019||SITTING WITH THE COURT : Sandstrom, Dale V.|