My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-04-27_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2012-04-27_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:56:56 PM
Creation date
2/21/2014 9:53:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
4/27/2012
Doc Name
Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisd 2010 CV 367
From
Christopher G. McAnany Matthew A. Montgomery Dufford, Waldeck, Milburn & Krohn, LLP
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.
/
12
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
picking rocks to the extent a rock picker is capable. The reclamation standard will be as <br />approved by DMG with Lessor's consent." Exhibit 1, attached, § 8(d). 2 <br />Although operations by WFC on the Lease premises are clearly governed by Colorado law, the <br />SCMRA, and implementing regulations, the Lease in this case clearly (and properly) imposes <br />other, additional obligations, upon WFC that are not the subject of regulation by administrative <br />agencies. While these duties may overlap with those under SCMRA, the Act does not supplant <br />those Lease obligations. Moreover, the Lease contains an integration clause stating that it is the <br />"entire agreement of the parties." Exhibit 1, § 7(a). Nowhere in the Lease is there any <br />obligation requiring that the Morgans exhaust administrative remedies as a precondition to <br />seeking judicial review, nor can any such duty be implied, proven by extrinsic evidence, or <br />otherwise engrafted onto the Lease. KN Energy, Inc. v. Great Western Sugar Co., 698 P.2d 769, <br />777 n. 9 (Colo. 1985)(integrated contract may not be varied or contradicted by means of extrinsic <br />evidence). <br />Further, the SCMRA clearly preserves the contractual and common law rights of the <br />Morgans by stating, in the section describing judicial review: <br />"Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which any person or class of persons may <br />have under any statute or common law to seek enforcement of any of the provisions of <br />this article or the regulations promulgated under this article or to seek any other <br />allowable relief, including relief against the appropriate state agency." C.R.S. § 34-33 - <br />136(5)(emphasis added). <br />Not only are common law remedies outside of the scope of agency jurisdiction, but the SCMRA <br />expressly reserves the rights of persons to "seek any other allowable relief. i3 Id. Likewise, the <br />SCMRA itself is silent on any obligation of a party to exhaust its administrative remedies as a <br />pre- condition to invoking any contractual claims. This conclusion is buttressed by the <br />2 As a courtesy for reference, pertinent documents referenced by WFC are attached with the same number used by <br />WFC. Documents offered by Plaintiffs are lettered. <br />3 Plaintiffs have been repeatedly informed by DRMS personnel that the agency has no jurisdiction over lease <br />disputes with the mine operator, and they will offer evidence and testimony to support that position, if necessary. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.