Laserfiche WebLink
determinative of the existence of subject matter jurisdiction." City of Boulder v. Public Serv. Co. <br />of Colorado, 996 P.2d 198, 203 (Colo. App. 1999) (emphasis added). <br />Plaintiffs prefer to talk about the "thrust" of the FAC rather than its actual allegations <br />(Response Brief at 3), which are that Prime Farmlands procedures were not followed, resulting in <br />specific acts which damaged their Property. FAC at IT 12— 22. There are no other allegations of <br />conduct that damaged plaintiffs. The FAC does not specifically reference the Coal Mining Lease <br />except to allege it i=liedly irporates the regulatory requirements, the alleged violation of <br />which constitutes a breach. Id. 1124 and 26. The relief plaintiffs seek is "mandatory injunctive <br />relief to compel compliance with the Act and its regulations." Id. 133. These are the exact <br />allegations presented to, and rejected by the Division. <br />II. Plaintiffs' Contract Claim Must Be Dismissed. <br />A. Contract Claims Are Not Exempt. <br />It therefore makes no difference that plaintiffs have attempted to package their allegations <br />of regulatory violations as breaches of contract in their First Claim for Relief. See, FAC IT 24 <br />and 26. Under Colorado law, private causes of action are not generally exempted from the <br />requirement to exhaust available remedies. For example, in State of Colorado v. Golden's <br />Concrete Co., 962 P.2d 919 (Colo. 1998), the plaintiffs attempted to assert causes of action <br />sounding in "waiver, estoppel, res judicata, statute of limitations, and laches, as well as a request <br />for declaratory judgment." Id. at 922 n.6. Exhaustion was still required. <br />More specifically, merely asserting a contract cause of action is not a hall pass to district <br />court for plaintiffs who have neglected available remedies. City of Aspen v. Kinder Morgan, <br />Inc., 143 P.3d 1076, 1081 -1082 (Colo. App. 2006); City of Boulder v. Public Serv. Co. of <br />Colorado, 996 P.2d 198 (Colo. App. 1999). In City of Boulder, the plaintiff municipality <br />3 <br />