On October 26, 2014, an Oklahoma district court dismissed a case filed by a woman who alleged injuries from an earthquake she said was caused by water disposal operations. Some in the media have highlighted this as an "earthquake" case when, in fact, it is another example of judicial restraint and the application of regulatory preemption.

In reaching its decision to dismiss the plaintiff's case, the Lincoln County District Court noted that the water disposal operations had been approved by the Oklahoma Corporations Commission, which has authority over the licensing of those operations. In addition, the court noted that the plaintiff did not make any allegations that the licenses were violated by the operators in the operation of the water disposal wells.

As a result, the court concluded that the matter was outside the court's jurisdiction and, instead, the plaintiff should seek redress, at least as an initial matter, with the Corporations Committee.

Though the plaintiff vowed to appeal, the court's decision is in line with a long list of authority from a variety of jurisdictions holding that state regulatory agencies have authority over a wide-range of disputes related to their regulatory authority. Many of these cases hold that redress for violations of the agencies' rules, regulations or order should initially be directed to the agency itself, not to the court systems.

This ruling, and others, give guidance to defense counsel to always consider the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the preeminence of the state regulatory agency. In many cases, this analysis can pave the way for an early dismissal of a complaint.

Originally published October 29, 2014

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.