My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-04-08_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2011-04-08_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:32:28 PM
Creation date
2/21/2014 9:58:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
4/8/2011
Doc Name
Colorado DRMS Motion to Dismiss itself as a Party Defendant 2010 CV 367
From
DRMS
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.
/
8
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
issued in this matter would only apply to WFC and, if necessary, Plaintiffs have enforcement <br />remedies available through the Court to seek compliance with an order. <br />Although the Division has continuing interest in this matter as a State regulator of a coal <br />mining operation with an active permit, its interests are limited to permitting and regulatory <br />matters. The Division does not have a direct interest in this civil matter which seeks monetary <br />damages against WFC. To date, the Division has not found WFC to be in violation of the Act <br />related to the removal and handling of prime farmland soils. Issues and allegations raised by <br />Plaintiffs related to breach of the coal mining lease, diminution of property values, lost income, <br />and other monetary damages are all private civil matters outside of the Division's scope of legal <br />interest, authority, and jurisdiction. The Division does not wish to participate as a party in this <br />matter and does not believe the Division is a necessary party simply because Plaintiffs have <br />asserted a claim for vague and speculative future injunctive relief against WFC. <br />Accordingly, given that Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts allegations only against WFC, not <br />the Division, and given that the court, not the Division, would be the entity that enforces the <br />injunctive relief if so ordered, the Division should be dismissed as a party- Defendant from this <br />action. See Western Innovations, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corporation, 187 P.3d 1155 (Colo. App. 2008); <br />Nelson v. Nelson, 497 P.2d 1284, 31 Colo. App. 63 (1972). See also Bristol Company, LP v. <br />Osman, 190 P.3d 752 (Colo. App. 2008) (appellate court upholds dismissal where allegations in <br />complaint are too vague, insubstantial and attenuated). <br />WHEREFORE, the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety respectfully <br />requests that this Court dismiss it as a party- Defendant from the civil action brought by <br />Plaintiffs. <br />Respectfully submitted this 8th day of April, 2011. <br />JOHN W. SUTHERS <br />Attorney General <br />/s /Jeff M. Fugate <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.