|
<br />~
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />3, Pacific/Desert can show "good cause" for the Board to grant this Motion, .
<br />A showing of "good cause" is analogous to a showing of "excusable neglect." See e,g"
<br />Buckmiller y, Safeway Stores, Inc" 727 P,2d 1112 (Colo, 1986) (stating that a motion to
<br />set aside a default under C,R,C,P, 55(c) and a motion to vacate a judgment under
<br />C,R,C,P, 60(b) on the basis of excusable neglect are sufficiently analogous to justify the
<br />same standards to either motion), Pacific/Desert's failure to file a timely Notice of
<br />Party Status was a result of excusable neglect.
<br />
<br />PacificlDesert did not know of the CWCB's appropriation of the ISF in time to
<br />file a timely Notice of Party Status, In fact, Pacific/Desert only learned of the pending
<br />administrative proceeding after it purchased Hideout Lake Ranch in September 2005
<br />and hired the undersigned counsel to assist in the adjudication of certain water rights
<br />for the ranch, Although the notice of the ISF was presumably provided in the ISF
<br />Subscription Mailing Lists in accordance with the CWCB's Rules, the notice simply did
<br />not reach Pacific/Desert or its predecessors in title, Under similar circumstances, the
<br />Colorado Supreme Court has found that a failure to protest in a timely manner was
<br />excusable, See SL Goup, LLC y, Go West Industries, Inc" 42 P,3d 637 (2002)(holding
<br />that the water court erred in summarily dismissing landowner's petition for
<br />reconsideration of a decree that had been entered over a year previously, where the
<br />landowner did not receive personal notice of the application according to Section 37.
<br />92.032(3)(c)(I), C,R,S" and otherwise was unaware of the application),
<br />
<br />4, Pacific/Desert's proposed Notice of Party Status is attached hereto and .
<br />incorporated herein, As required by Rule 5,1., the Notice of Party Status sets forth a .
<br />brief statement of the contested facts, the matters that Pacific/Desert claims should be
<br />decided, and a general description of the data to be presented by Pacific/Desert should
<br />the CWCB grant this motion,
<br />
<br />5, Granting this motion will not result in prejudice. PacificlDesert urges the
<br />CWCB to grant Party status to Pacific/Desert, so that PacificlDesert and the CWCB can
<br />strive to resolve Pacific/Desert's concerns during the administrative proceeding and
<br />thereby streamline the adjudication of the ISF in the Water Court proceeding,
<br />
<br />6. The undersigned has conferred with Ms, Sara Dunn, counsel for Eldred,
<br />who advised that she does not oppose this motion, The undersigned also conferred with
<br />Ms, Virginia Brannon, counsel for the CWCB, and Mr, Andrew Peternell, counsel for
<br />Trout Unlimited, both of whom advised that they oppose this motion,
<br />
<br />WHEREFORE, Pacific/Desert requests that the CWCB exercise its discretion to
<br />allow Pacific/Desert to intervene and thereby give Pacific/Desert a meaningful
<br />opportunity to be heard in this administrative proceeding,
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />2
<br />
|