Laserfiche WebLink
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE <br />1. Admit. <br />2. WFC is without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the existence of <br />agreements between or among Plaintiffs, and on that basis denies such allegations. WFC admits <br />the remaining allegations of paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint. <br />Admit. <br />4. Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint is not directed to WFC and therefore no <br />response to the factual allegations is required. WFC affirmatively states that it has not been <br />served with process in 10 -CV -548 and therefore any response to the Amended Complaint in this <br />action is without prejudice to or waiver of any response or defense, including any defense under <br />C.R.C.P. Rule 12(b), that WFC may make in response to 10 -CV -548. <br />5. WFC does not contest venue in this Court. WFC denies the factual allegations of <br />paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint. <br />6. WFC does not contest personal jurisdiction. This Court may lack subject matter <br />jurisdiction as to some or all of Plaintiffs' claims, therefore WFC denies the balance of the <br />allegations of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint. <br />7. WFC denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint. <br />8. WFC admits that Plaintiffs sent WFC a document dated March 10, 2010 that <br />purported to give notice of a citizen suit, which document speaks for itself. DRMS responded <br />appropriately by investigating the allegations and found no violation of applicable law or <br />regulation. Plaintiffs then failed to seek review as provided by Colorado statute. WFC denies <br />the remaining allegations of paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint. <br />PLAINTIFFS' GENERAL ALLEGATIONS <br />9. WFC admits that it entered a Coal Mining Lease with Frank and Mary Lou <br />Morgan dated September 10, 1998. For purposes of this Answer, WFC does not contest the <br />allegation in paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint to the effect that Exhibit B is a true and <br />correct copy of this Lease, but does not admit the same. <br />10. WFC admits the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint subject to <br />the clarification that the referenced Coal Mining Lease is between WFC as Lessee and Frank and <br />Mary Lou Morgan as Lessor. <br />11. WFC is without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of <br />paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint, and on that basis denies those allegations. <br />12. WFC admits that the Premises contain Barx soils and denies the remaining <br />allegations of paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint. WFC affirmatively states that Barx <br />{00020579.2 } 2 <br />