Laserfiche WebLink
Board's implementation of its own rules and enabling law is entitled to considerable deference <br />from this Court. The informal review by OSM is another potential remedy that could have <br />provided plaintiffs relief, but was not pursued to its full conclusion. <br />Instead, plaintiffs chose to abandon administrative proceedings addressing their claims at <br />both the federal and state level as soon as they received an adverse ruling from the agencies. <br />Plaintiffs appear to hope that this Court will disregard the previous actions of two agencies with <br />expertise and jurisdiction in the rules and regulations of the Colorado Coal Program, and allow <br />plaintiffs to start over again as though the DRMS and OSM had never spoken. <br />Under Colorado law, this is improper. Having failed to preserve their right to challenge <br />the Division's finding that WFC was in compliance with its permit and all applicable regulations <br />of the Colorado Coal Program, plaintiffs cannot mount that challenge in this action. Like the <br />Board, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over those claims and for the identical reasons. <br />Conclusion <br />WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, WFC is entitled to dismissal of the First <br />Amended Complaint, dismissal of this action, and judgment in its favor as to all of plaintiffs' <br />claims, in addition to all such further relief as the Court shall deem proper. <br />Respectfully submitted March 30, 2012. <br />CARVER SCHWARZ McNAB & BAILEY, LLC <br />Duly executed on ink file <br />Christopher Kamper ( #24629) <br />Craig R. Carver ( #5200) <br />Attorneys for Defendant <br />15 <br />