Summary 2009 WY 62

Summary of Decision issued May 7, 2009

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Wm. F. West Ranch, LLC v. Tyrell; Pennaco Energy Inc. v. Wm F. West Ranch, LLC

Citation: 2009 WY 62

Docket Number: S-08-0161; S-08-0162

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge.

Representing Wm West Ranch (West): Kate M. Fox and J. Mark Stewart of David & Cannon, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Sarah Klahn of White & Jankowski, Denver, Colorado.

Representing Pennaco: Brent R. Kunz of Hathaway & Kunz, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming; John C. Martin of Patton Boggs LLP, Washington, DC; Scott P. Klosterman and Margo Harlan-Sabec of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Tyrrell and State Engineer and Board of Control: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Jay Jerde, Deputy Attorney General; Peter K. Michael, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Marion Yoder, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: West Ranch and the Turners (West) appealed the district court’s determination that it did not have jurisdiction over their declaratory judgment action challenging the Wyoming State Engineer’s and Wyoming Board of Control’s (the State) administration of underground water produced and stored as part of the process of extracting coal bed methane (CBM). The district court concluded that the plaintiffs had not presented a justiciable controversy because the issues were currently being considered by the legislative and executive branches of state government. The Court noted the dispositive issue to be whether the plaintiffs sufficiently articulated any justiciable claim under Wyoming’s Declaratory Judgments Act.

Jurisdiction – Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act: The Act does not extend the jurisdiction of the courts. It defines the rights which may be subject to declaration under the act and the parties who may seek a declaration of their rights. The Court noted that in Brimmer v. Thomson, it adopted a four-part test for determining whether a party presented a justiciable controversy to maintain a declaratory judgment action in Wyoming. The test required the parties have existing and genuine rights or interests; the controversy be one upon which the judgment of the court may effectively operate as distinguished from a debate evoking a purely political, administrative, philosophical or academic conclusion; it must be a controversy the judicial determination of which will have the force and effect of a final judgment in law or decree in equity upon rights, status or legal relationships of the parties; and the proceedings must be genuinely adversary in character and not mere disputation. Declaratory judgment is not available in administrative cases when the question should initially be decided by the agency. An agency created by the legislature to perform a specific function is considered to have special expertise.
Application of Declaratory Judgment Law to Plaintiff’s Complaint: The Brimmer elements require West and Turner to allege that they have a tangible interest which has been harmed and that a judicial decision in their favor will effectively remedy the harm. In the context of the case, West and Turner needed to allege that the State had a constitutional or statutory duty to undertake some function in an actual way; and a declaration that the State had the responsibility to undertake that specific function would effectively remedy their harm. While West and Turner do allege the State has generally failed to comply with certain statutory and constitutional duties in administering CBM water and that they have a genuine interest in that they won property that has been harmed by CBM water, they do not allege facts that connect the asserted general deficiencies win the State’s administration of CBM water to direct harm they have suffered or will suffer in the future. They did not allege facts that would indicate a declaratory judgment in accordance with their particular requests for relief would have an actual effect on their properties. While the Court has recognized a more lenient definition of justiciability in matters of great public importance, the facts alleged in the cases demonstrated that public importance alone was not sufficient to establish justiciability.
Right to Intervene: The Court did not consider the question of intervention because it affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs’ claims were too general to be justiciable. They did not connect the alleged deficiencies in the State’s administration of water to a direct harm they have suffered. Nor did they make a sufficient showing that a ruling by the court would have an actual effect on them. Moreover, administrative remedies are available to the plaintiffs to address many of their complaints. Where administrative procedures are provided, the plaintiffs must utilize those procedures before bringing a declaratory judgment action.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/dm5wwn .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]