My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-04-05_REVISION - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2011-04-05_REVISION - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:32:23 PM
Creation date
2/20/2014 8:09:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
4/5/2011
Doc Name
CO DRMS Motion to Dismiss itself as a Party Defendant 2010 CV 548
From
DRMS
To
District Court, Montrose County Colorado
Type & Sequence
PR6
Email Name
DAB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
to "petition and appeal from final administrative action undertaken by the Colorado Mined Land <br />Reclamation Board ". Complaint at page 1. Further in the complaint at paragraph 11 Plaintiffs <br />state "the Mined Land Board held a contested hearing with respect to the New Horizon Mine" <br />and at paragraph 12 state "at the conclusion of the hearing the Board announced its approval of <br />PR -6 ". <br />7. The complaint, at paragraph 20, does reference the Division, alleging the Division and <br />Board "acted arbitrarily, capriciously" and "in violation of substantive and procedural due <br />process rights of the Plaintiffs ". However, Plaintiffs then list out specific conduct in <br />subparagraphs (a) -(f) that address hearing procedures allegedly employed by the Board during <br />the course of the administrative hearing. The Division, as a party to the hearing, played no role <br />in the admission of testimony or evidence, ruling on requests for continuances, issuance of <br />subpoenas, or other procedural rulings solely within the discretion and authority of the Board. <br />Therefore, the Plaintiffs' complaint clearly indicates that the actions sought to be reviewed by <br />this Court are that of the Board and not the Division. Therefore, the Division should be <br />dismissed as a parry. <br />8. As stated above, the Board and Division are two definite and distinct legal entities and <br />the Act and Rules outline the separate roles and authority of both entities. Cold Springs Ranch, <br />supra. In light of the arguments above, the relief requested by the Plaintiffs goes only to the <br />Board's final decision approving PR -6, and not to any action taken by the Division regarding <br />PR -6. Accordingly, the Division should be dismissed from this action. <br />WHEREFORE, the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety respectfully <br />requests that this Court dismiss it as a party- defendant from the judicial review of final <br />administrative action brought by Plaintiffs. <br />Respectfully submitted this 5th day of April, 2011. <br />JOHN W. SUTHERS <br />Attorney General <br />E filed in accordance with C.R.C.P. 121, § 1 -26; duly signed original on <br />file with the office of Attorney General for the State of Colorado <br />/s /Jeff M. Fugate <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.