1979-06-22_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352

Home Browse Search

clear from the transcript of the March 1, 1979 MLRB pro- ceeding and the Affidavit of Mr. Nottingham that his par- ticipation in the meeting was solely as a corporate officer and representative of Nottingham Sand & Gravel Company. These facts make clear that Mr. Nottingham was not a "party in the agency action" whose joinder is required by Section 24-4-106 (4) , C. R. S. 1973. Indeed, if Mr. Nottingham' s status as a representative of the permit applicant requires his joinder, then Plaintiffs ' interpretation of Section 24- 4-106 (4) would also require the joinder as a "party" of attor- neys and other professionals or witnesses appearing at an administrative proceeding on behalf of, or as a representative of a permit applicant. Mere participation in the administra- tive proceeding is not the test for identifying "parties" ; otherwise, actions for judicial review of agency action would be cluttered with parties who have no interest in the liti- gation. There are, in any event, very specific standards for identifying proper parties to an administrative proceed- as indicated in Section II . B. of this brief . In the same vein, any effort to impose some independent obligation upon Mr. Nottingham to comply with notice require- ments in connection with the permit application of Nottingham Sand & Gravel must also fail as a consequence of Mr. Nottingham' s status as a non-applicant. Nor may Plaintiffs derive any basis for Mr. Nottingham' s joinder from C.R.C.P. 19 and 20. These rules are operative only when an independent cause of action can be asserted against the person sought to be joined, a prere- quisite which Plaintiffs here are unable to satisfy with re- gard to Mr. Nottingham. Specifically, Mr. Nottingham' s joinder is not required to prevent prejudice to Plaintiffs within the meaning of Rule 19 for the reason that Mr. Nottingham holds no permit and therefore cannot, in his individual capacity, take any action to implement the decision of the Board. -2-