Cook, et al v. Rockwell Intl Corp
ORDER Approving Stipulated Dismissal With Prejudice and Entry of Final Judgment 2355 . This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each side to bear its own costs, and final judgment in favor of Defendants is entered by Judge John L. Kane on 02/27/14.(jhawk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 90-cv-00181-JLK
MERILYN COOK, et al.,
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
and THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY,
ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND ENTRY OF
To advance the resolution of this long-running litigation, Plaintiffs and Defendants,
through their counsel, agree and stipulate as follows:
The Tenth Circuit reversed the judgment in this case and remanded to me for “further
proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.” Cook v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 618 F.3d 1127,
1133, 1153 (10th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, No. 10-1377, 2012 WL 2368857 (U.S. June 25, 2012)
(the “Tenth Circuit Decision”).
On remand, the parties disagreed about the nature and scope of further proceedings.
Plaintiffs proposed that I reinstate the jury verdict, recertify the class, and enter judgment on
their nuisance claim under Colorado law. Defendants opposed that proposal on the ground,
among others, that the PAA preempts state-law claims arising from a nuclear incident and, as a
result, a plaintiff who brings a PAA claim may not pursue a state-law claim based on the same
On January 28, 2014, following briefing by the parties, I issued an Order (ECF No. 2351)
(the “January 28 Order”) ruling, among other things, that a plaintiff who brings a PAA claim
may not simultaneously pursue a state-law claim based on the same facts and, as a result,
“Plaintiffs may not litigate this case outside the PAA.” (Id. at 13). In light of that ruling, I
declined to address Plaintiffs’ proposal to reinstate the jury verdict, re-certify the class, and enter
judgment on Plaintiffs’ nuisance claim under Colorado law.
In that same Order, I suggested that, “[b]ecause of the extraordinary length of this
litigation” the parties “give serious consideration” to an appeal from the Order. (Id. at 13, n. 4).
Plaintiffs disagree with the January 28 Order and have indicated they expect to appeal it.
Defendants oppose any appeal from the January 28 Order unless such appeal would
potentially lead to final resolution of this action.
To enable Plaintiffs to pursue their appeal from the January 28 Order and to address
Defendants’ concern that such an appeal is inappropriate unless it could potentially lead to final
resolution of this action, the parties stipulate as follows:
In light of the Tenth Circuit Decision, Plaintiffs will not pursue any claims under the
PAA unless the Tenth Circuit Decision is overturned or modified.
Accordingly, my ruling on remand that “Plaintiffs may not litigate this case outside the
PAA,” (January 28, 2014 Order at 13), means that Plaintiffs have no further claims to litigate in
the district court unless that ruling is overturned on appeal or unless the Tenth Circuit Decision is
overturned or modified.
So that Plaintiffs may immediately appeal from the January 28 Order, the parties
stipulate to the dismissal of this action with prejudice and the entry of judgment in favor of
Defendants. Each side is to bear its own costs.
The parties agree that the judgment entered pursuant to their Stipulated Order constitutes
a final appealable order.
The parties agree that nothing in this Stipulation waives Plaintiffs’ right to appeal the
January 28, 2014 Order.
The parties agree that nothing in this Stipulation affects or waives Plaintiffs’ right
to seek relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 to modify or clarify the January 28 Order.
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each side to bear its own
costs, and final judgment in favor of Defendants is entered.
February 27, 2014
BY THE COURT:
s/John L. Kane
John L. Kane, U.S. Senior District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?