United States District Court, D. Colorado
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
S. Krieger United States District Judge.
MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant
EE3, LLC's (“EE3”) Motion for Summary
Judgment (#89). The Court also has reviewed
the opposition and supporting briefing thereto (#100,
Webb invokes the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction
premised upon diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §
Summary of Relevant Facts
Court summarizes the pertinent facts here and elaborates as
necessary in its analysis.
the owner and operator of an oil well in Jackson County,
Colorado. One of the steps in oil production is
“oiling” or “hot oiling, ” by which
open flames are used to separate saleable oil from water and
condensates. EE3 entered into a subcontract with Adler Hot
Oil Services, Inc. (“Adler”) to perform the
oiling at ¶ 3's Jackson County well. Adler, in turn,
contracted with a staffing agency called RifleWorks, Inc.
(“Rifle”) to provide it with employees.
Webb was nominally an employee of Rifle, but he performed
oiling work for Adler, and was badly burned while doing so.
Both Rifle and Adler maintained Worker's Compensation
insurance policies, and Mr. Webb applied for and received
Worker's Compensation benefits.
Webb brings this action against EE3 contending that it
negligently operated the well in various respects, and that
such negligence led to his injuries. In the Amended Complaint
(#43), Mr. Webb alleges a single claim
sounding in common-law negligence, presumably under Colorado
law, against each of EE3 and FMC.
moves (# 89) for summary judgment on the
claim against it, arguing that it is precluded by the
Colorado Worker's Compensation scheme pursuant to C.R.S.
Standard of review
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure facilitates the entry
of a judgment only if no trial is necessary. See White v.
York Int'l Corp., 45 F.3d 357, 360 (10th Cir. 1995).
Thus, the primary question presented to the Court in
considering a Motion for Summary Judgment or a Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment is: is a trial required?
is required if there are material factual disputes to
resolve. As a result, entry of summary judgment is authorized
only “when there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Savant Homes,
Inc. v. Collins, 809 F.3d 1133, 1137 (10th Cir. 2016). A
fact is material if, under the substantive law, it is an
essential element of the claim. See Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is
genuine if the conflicting ...