Laserfiche WebLink
9 <br /> i MR. SINGLETARY: Do I need a motion 1 I point that out only because in his <br /> 2 for that? 2 response, Mr. Justus on behalf of Snowcap correctly <br /> 3 MR. ROBERTS: It might be good to 3 stated that there had not been litigation previously <br /> 4 take a motion. 4 filed, and it was filed yesterday, and we will be <br /> 5 MR. SINGLETARY: I would like to have 5 seeking relief from the Court interpreting those <br /> 6 a motion. I think it would be more comforting. 6 documents as a property rights dispute. <br /> 7 MS. VAN NOORD: So I will move that 7 My motion is limine is very simple. <br /> 8 we deny the motion to dismiss for lack of 8 Mr. — Snowcap Coal was requested by DBMS to give <br /> 9 jurisdiction by Objector Fontanari Family Revocable 9 evidence of my client's consent to the proposed act <br /> 10 Trust. 10 of reclamation. I'll call it the two grout plugs, <br /> 11 MR. SINGLETARY: Is there a second? 11 and leave it at that. <br /> 12 MR. RANDALL: Second. 12 They submitted the 2003 contract. We <br /> 13 MR. SINGLETARY: Second -- 13 believe that the 2003 contract is superseded by <br /> 14 Mr. Pandall seconded. All those in favor of the 14 MR-82. However, this Board under 34-33-110, <br /> 15 motion. 15 subdivision J, lacks authority to adjudicate a <br /> 16 (All Board members were in favor of 16 property rights dispute, meaning in essence that if <br /> 17 the motion.) 17 it's based on a contract, this Board cannot sit as a <br /> 18 MR. SINMARY: Those opposed, no. 18 court of law to interpret and enforce contractual <br /> 19 (No response from the Board mem)ers.) 19 agreement. That can only be done by a Court. <br /> 20 MR. SINGLETARY: Motion passes. 20 Therefore, when these are presented, <br /> 21 MR. ROBERTS: The second motion filed 21 our motion was to exclude the 2003 and exclude and <br /> 22 by the Fontanari Family Revocable Trust is the 22 prohibit anyone from arguing that the MR-82 -- that <br /> 23 motion in limine and to strike contract documents by 23 we have consented in any way to this act of <br /> 24 the objector. I'm going to --without going through 24 reclamation, because we have not. <br /> 25 undue procedural, I'm going to assume that no oral 25 Beyond that and beyond that <br /> 9 11 <br /> 1 arguments will be offered by the parties and the 1 statement, I stand ready to answer questions to the <br /> 2 Division. 2 Board, but I see no utility in going through an <br /> 3 Baring no objection -- 3 extensive legal argument, but I needed to update it, <br /> 4 MR. BECRWITH: No, not necessarily. 4 Mr. Roberts. <br /> 5 MR. ROBERTS: -- we'll jump right to 5 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Mr. Justus. <br /> 6 that. 6 MR. JUSTUS: Yes, members of the <br /> 7 Do you want to offer something on 7 Board. I'd like to clarify. Snowcap as penmittee <br /> 8 this, Mr. Beckwith? 8 is required to submit to the Board as part of the <br /> 9 MR. BECWITH: Yes, because I also 9 application it's right of entry to ccuplete <br /> 10 have to update it. 10 reclamation tasks. That is what the submission of <br /> 11 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Please feel 11 the 2003 documents: the purchase and sale agreement, <br /> 12 free. 112 as well as the special warranty deed setting out <br /> 13 MR. BECEWITH: Yesterday litigation 13 Snowcap's retained property rights in the Fontanari <br /> 14 was filed in the Mesa District Court, Case Number 14 property to ca:plete any reclamation, then or <br /> 15 17-CV-30314, between the Fontanari Family Revocable 15 otherwise required in the future, under its permit. <br /> 16 Trust and Snowcap Coal relative to common law 16 Thus, that is the basis of Snowcap's <br /> 17 remedies and seeking declaratory judgment 17 right of entry. We are not asking that the Board <br /> 18 interpreting the 2003 purchase and sale agreement 18 interpret it, but it is a required submission as <br /> 19 between Fontanari and Snowcap Coal and what has been 19 part of its application. <br /> 20 commonly referred to as MR-82, the coamitments dated 20 Second, regarding MR-82, it is <br /> 21 12/21/2015. 21 undisputed that the Board and DRMS have the <br /> 22 Three additional claims to that have 22 authority to interpret the permit and their orders <br /> 23 also been submitted, all of then being common law 23 under the permit. That would be within the <br /> 24 claims. The litigation is not based on statute, 24 exclusive jurisdiction of this Board initially. <br /> 25 rule, or a provision of the permit. 25 So as far as the interpretation of <br /> 10 12 <br />