Laserfiche WebLink
constitutional or jurisdictional authority of an agency). The complaint in this matter indicates <br />that the Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the Board's order because they must expend time and <br />resources participating in the administrative process. See Plaintiffs' Original Petition and <br />Complaint for Judicial Review at § 36. The Colorado Supreme Court has made it quite clear, <br />however, that even where the party seeking review will incur significant expense and suffer delay <br />by participating in the administrative process, "such expense and delay alone have never been <br />considered irreparable injury." Colorado Health, 689 P.2d at 622. <br />Because the interlocutory order of the Boazd is not reviewable by this coup, Plaintiffs' <br />Application must be denied. Indeed, because this court lacks jurisdiction to review the Board's <br />order. the Plaintiffs' entire cause of action should be dismissed. <br />B. The Board's Action Was Properly Within Its <br />Jurisdiction and Was Cousisteut With the Law <br />The Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to temporary relief because they are likely to <br />prevail on the merits in the determination of this matter. The Plaintiffs support this claim based <br />on two assertions. First, the Plaintiffs assert that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion <br />of Basin Resources. Second, the Plaintiffs claim that the Board's action was "azbitrary, <br />capricious, unsuppotted by substantial evidence, and otherwise inconsistent with law." Neither <br />claim can withstand scrutiny. <br />The Board Has Broad Jurisdiction to Review Notices of Violation. <br />The Coal Act expressly authorizes the Board to review Notices of Violation issued by the <br />Division, and well as the modification, vacation, or temtination of such NOVs. Colo. Rev. Stat. <br />§ 34-33-124(1)(a). The Coal Act grants the Board "full power and authority to carry out and <br />-~- <br />