My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2019-12-02_ENFORCEMENT - M1996076
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1996076
>
2019-12-02_ENFORCEMENT - M1996076
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2024 3:20:10 PM
Creation date
12/4/2019 9:24:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1996076
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
12/2/2019
Doc Name
Motion/Petition to Stay Board Decision
From
Rudy Fontanari / John R. Henderson
To
DRMS
Email Name
CMM
THM
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.
/
9
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
6. During or just before the hearing, a call was received on counsel's office phone <br /> apparently stating that the hearing was about to start. Counsel was not in the office. No <br /> one was in the office; counsel was 12 miles away at a car dealership, but, did have his <br /> cell phone with him. Counsel was eventually shuttled back to his office, and the call was <br /> not found on the message machine until after the hearing. <br /> 7. Fontanari's Response of November 12 was not "late filed" or, "last minute"; Fontanari <br /> was responding to a DRMS Motion of approximately 15 pages, which it did within 5 %z <br /> business days; the intent of Fontanari was that its rapid filing would allow adequate time <br /> for the distribution and review of its Response by the Board, as it contained important <br /> argument and caselaw.The filing,including the cover e-mail to six state actors afforded a <br /> unique opportunity to inform Fontanari and counsel that their motions (or, at least some <br /> of them) were set for hearing the next morning. The opportunity was not taken, and <br /> Fontanari and counsel had no reasonable or adequate notice of the hearing. <br /> 8. Construction Materials Rule 2.2.1 (a) provides the requirements for Notice of regular <br /> board meetings. Rule 2.2.1 (a)(i) requires mailing to, "...Operators whose Permit(s) or <br /> operation(s) may be the specific subject of consideration at the meeting." The Board <br /> orders being appealed by the Motion/Petition for Reconsideration included multiple <br /> orders, requirements, civil fines and bond increase, all related to Fontanari's Permit and <br /> operations. No mailed Notice was received by Fontanari or counsel. <br /> 9. Fontanari's Motion to Reconsider, timely filed October 8, 2019, also included a Petition <br /> for Declaratory Judgment, directed at specific water rights and water rights <br /> administration issues impacted by the Board's September 26 order. Construction <br /> Materials Rule 2.5.4 governs the procedure for consideration of such Petition. <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.