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
As matter of the Colorado Constitution, both judge -made law and the Colorado <br />Administrative Procedure Act, CRS §§ 24 -4 -101 to 108, comprehensively enforce the <br />constitutional separation of powers by requiring parties involved in administrative proceedings to <br />exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of determinations made by <br />the agency. Envirotest v. Colorado Dep't of Revenue, 109 P.3d 142, 143 — 144 (Colo. 2005) <br />citin CRS § 24 -4- 106(2) ( "[fJinal agency action under this or any other law shall be subject to <br />judicial review as provided in this section ") (emphasis added). See also, Opening Brief at 7 — 9 <br />and cases cited therein. Here, plaintiffs' claims are not "allowable" due to their failure to <br />exhaust remedies. <br />C. Hypothetical Future Breaches Do Not Create Jurisdiction. <br />Plaintiffs next argue that, despite all appearances, the FAC is really concerned with other <br />breaches of contract than the ones it actually alleges. Response Brief at 3 — 4. The only Lease <br />provision plaintiffs identify in their brief — not referenced in the FAC — is one that addresses the <br />final condition of the Property following reclamation. Id. As stated in WFC's Brief (and not <br />contested by plaintiffs) reclamation will not be complete until at the earliest the year 2022. <br />Opening Brief, Statement of Facts at page 3 ¶ 3. Plaintiffs may speculate that Western Fuels <br />might, someday, breach this provision, but that does confer jurisdiction on this Court. Not only <br />is there no anticipatory repudiation alleged in the FAC, but under WFC's current, approved <br />permit, the reclamation plan will accomplish each of these requirements. See, Opening Brief <br />Exhibit 8, page 5, IT 35 and 38. Plaintiffs have made no move to pursue their appeal of the <br />approval of PR -06 in the companion case in this Court, 10 -CV -548. Until that approval is <br />reversed, the Court must presume that this regulatory finding is proper and binding on this Court, <br />and it cannot be challenged in this action (See, Argument Section III.C. below). <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.