Laserfiche WebLink
nearly a day and a half to do so. Instead it was erroneously presumed by Plaintiffs' counsel that <br />an agreement to allow additional time to respond was the same as an agreement to set aside an <br />Order granting the requested relief. <br />6. Upon learning on April 26, 2011 that the Court had issued an Order and that Plaintiffs' <br />Motion was to set aside an order rather than to request a time extension, undersigned counsel <br />immediately requested that Plaintiffs' counsel file a motion to clarify the misstatements of facts <br />contained in the Unopposed Motion to Set Aside, specifically, to clarify to this Court that no <br />conference took place regarding the motion that Plaintiffs' ultimately filed. Although Plaintiff's <br />filed the requested clarification, the Division feels it is still necessary to make this filing to <br />clarify for the record the Division's position regarding the inaccurate and misleading statements <br />presented to the Court. <br />7. Although the Division agreed to extend the Plaintiffs' response date to May 3, 2011, the <br />Division believes that the Court's Order granting dismissal is substantively correct. In the <br />administrative hearing before the Board in this matter, the Division made no final agency <br />decisions on the PR -6 application subject to judicial review under §34 -33 -128 of the Colorado <br />Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act. The Division's decision regarding PR -6 was a proposed <br />decision, subject to appeal to the Board. It was the Board's action that constitutes the final <br />agency action in this matter for purposes of judicial review, not the Division's proposed decision. <br />Therefore, the Plaintiff failed to bring a claim upon which relief could be granted as to the <br />Division. <br />8. The intent of this filing is not to cause additional delay nor to add to the procedural <br />confusion related to the Division's Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs' subsequent motions. <br />Undersigned counsel understands why Plaintiffs' counsel filed the Motion to Set Aside Order, <br />however, had proper consultation taken place this procedural mess could have been avoided. <br />9. The Division objects to setting aside the Order which grants the requested relief <br />presented and argued in its Motion to Dismiss Itself as a Party- Defendant. Although the <br />Division has agreed to extend the Plaintiffs' response deadline to May 3, 2011, this filing <br />clarifies that the Division believes the Court's Order granting the Division's dismissal requests is <br />substantively correct. <br />