Laserfiche WebLink
10. DRMS has claimed an interest relating to the subject of this action by issuing a permit to <br />Defendant WFC allowing surface mining on the property which is the subject of this <br />lawsuit. The conduct complained of in this action directly derives from acts by WFC which <br />are subject to that permit. WFC is currently conducting mining operations on land in which <br />the Plaintiffs have an interest, and therefore the interest of DRMS in regulating such <br />activity is ongoing. <br />11. DRMS has a regulatory interest in the subject matter of this suit. The claims are based on <br />allegations that Defendant WFC violated CSCMRA and regulations derived therefrom, <br />which DRMS is charged with enforcing. Those allegations must be accepted as true for the <br />purpose of deciding this motion. Defendant WFC has offered as a defense that its conduct <br />was allowed under its permit, which was issued by DRMS. See Answer to Amended <br />Complaint, Sixth Affirmative Defense. If the conduct of WFC violated CSCMRA but was <br />allowed under its permit, then the Court should grant injunctive relief altering the terms of <br />the permit such that they comply with CSCMRA. However, such alterations may not be <br />binding on the DRMS if they are not a party to this action. Similarly, if the Court finds that <br />WFC's conduct was not allowed under its permit, then DRMS's obligation to enforce the <br />permit will be implicated. Since DRMS issued the permit and has an obligation to enforce <br />the terms of the permit, its interest should be represented in this suit. See Plains <br />Exploration & Production Co. v, 4 -C's Land Corp., 2010 WL 3430516, at *2 -3 (E.D. La. <br />2010) (holding that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was an indispensable party in an <br />action seeking injunctive relief based on its duty to ensure compliance with permits it had <br />issued). <br />12. In the absence of DRMS as a party, the parties may be subject to contradictory obligations <br />from DRMS and from this Court. Plaintiffs have asked for injunctive relief, and in the <br />event the Court grants such relief, it will necessarily involve the same subject matter as <br />reclamation requirements in the mining permit issued to WFC by DRMS. If DRMS is <br />dismissed as a party, DRMS would not be bound by the Court's order, and a situation could <br />arise where WFC would be obligated to treat prime soils a certain way by this Court, but <br />have different and possibly conflicting obligations under its DRMS permit. Participation in <br />this suit by DRMS as a Defendant will ensure that any injunctive relief the Court may <br />decide to order does not subject Defendant WFC to conflicting obligations. <br />13. This controversy involves technical questions of fact related to the mining and reclamation <br />of prime farmland soils uniquely within the expertise and experience of DRMS. The <br />presence of DRMS in the suit will assist the Court in fashioning appropriate injunctive <br />relief. <br />14. The facts here are such that the injunctive relief Plaintiffs seeks is similar to that which <br />may be imposed by DRMS in a mining permit. Plaintiffs would be unfairly prejudiced if <br />DBMS is dismissed from the action and the Court subsequently declines to issue an <br />