2012-04-27_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008

Home Browse Search

Mining and Reclamation Act ( "SCMRA "), C.R.S. § 34 -33 -101 et seq. By Motion filed March 30, 2012, WFC moved the Court to dismiss this Action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, WFC asserts that Plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative remedies available to them under C.R.S. §§ 34 -33 -123 and 124, and that this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. II. ARGUMENT A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is governed by C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1). In reviewing a motion to dismiss premised on subject matter jurisdictional grounds, the trial court is free to receive and weigh any competent evidence turning on the jurisdictional question — including holding an evidentiary hearing on the question. Trinity Broadcasting of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster, 848 P.2d 916, 924 (Colo. 1993). WFC's motion must be denied because exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required because Plaintiffs' claims are 1) private causes of action grounded in a contract and not subject to any administrative procedure; and 2) statutory causes of action which are again not subject to administrative exhaustion. Finally, the WFC motion must fail because the putative basis for the failure to exhaust remedies has been superseded by independent administrative action. THE MORGANS' FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE COAL MINING LEASE IS NOT SUBJECT TO AN EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES REQUIREMENT. WFC argues that Plaintiffs' cause of action for breach of contract is subject to an exhaustion of remedies analysis because it is coextensive with other allegations alleging violations of the SCMRA. This argument fails because it improperly characterizes the contractual claim, and secondly because there is no exhaustion of remedies requirement where the legal claims are beyond the jurisdiction of the administrative agency. 2