My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-05-04_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2012-05-04_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:57:19 PM
Creation date
2/21/2014 9:53:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
5/4/2012
Doc Name
Defendants Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurs 2010 CV 367
From
Christopher Kamper, Craig R. Carver, Carver, Schwarz, McNab & Baily, LLC
To
District Court Montrose County Colorado
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
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.
/
14
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
10 -CV -367, DRMS Motion to Dismiss Itself as Party Defendant (filed April 8, 2011), at 5. <br />Therefore, characterizing the letter as a "reversal" of the April 23, 2010 determination by the <br />Division is inaccurate. See, Response Brief at 10. It is plaintiffs, and not Western Fuels, who <br />"blatantly mischaracterize" the administrative record. <br />C. The Remaining OSM Process is Irrelevant to this Motion. <br />Plaintiffs' remaining discussion has to do with OSM's review of PR -06, and the letters it <br />sent to DRMS in August of 2011. Response Brief at 9 — 11. It is clear that OSM took issue with <br />the Division's approval of PR -06, and demanded further investigation. See, Pl. Ex. B (August 10, <br />2011 letters from OSM). However, OSM left undisturbed, and did not find arbitrary and <br />capricious, either the Division's approval of PR -05 (the permit under which WFC operated <br />during the time period relevant to the instant Motion) or the April 23, 2010 determination that <br />WFC had not violated this permit or the Colorado Coal Program. See, Opening Brief Exhibit 9. <br />Plaintiffs quote extensively from Exhibit 9, but fail to identify a provision that actually supports <br />their argument. Response Brief at 9 (describing Opening Brief Exhibit 9). <br />Instead, plaintiffs appear to rely upon confusion between PR -05, which was approved in <br />the year 2000 and was the operating permit until 2009, and RN -5, which was approved on <br />August 24, 2009 (after the relevant time period described in the FAC). Exhibit 9 never refers to <br />PR -05 except to describe it in passing (Exhibit 9, page 3 T 5) but does refer to, and takes issue <br />with, RN -5 in several places (id. TT 7, 15 — 16). Again, Western Fuels accurately described the <br />state of the administrative record as reflected in Exhibit 9 and it is plaintiffs who attempt to <br />mischaracterize it. RN -5, as Exhibit 9 states, is a moot issue, along with all the other permit <br />actions identified in Exhibit 9 other than PR -06. <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.