ENFORCE34390 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rescheduled a pointless heazing on llte validity of Nulicc of Violation No. CV-2000-009 1br April 25, 2000. The Tatums' motion for temporary relief reyuests postponement of that hearing until this Court has an opportunity w review the complete record and decide whether the Board's majority 6>rossl}• exceeded its jurisdiction and erred as a mattcr of law in resturecting Ntrticc of Violalion No. CV-2000-009. This memorandum supports the Tatums' motion by stating the factual background, establishing this Court's jurisdiction, identifying the legal strtrtdazds for granting temporary relief; and arguing that temporary relief is both appropriate and vital to the interests of justice in this case. Introduction The Tatunts filed this judicial review action to protect their statutory right to abandon an administrative coutplaint that Ann Tatttm filed against BasinResoun:es. ]nc. ("Basin") forpnst-] 997 subsidence damage to the Tattuns' residence at Solitario Ranch near Weston, Colorado, in favor of the action they recently filed in this Court for money datitages against Basin growing out of the same ' The scheduled hearing before the Mined Land Reclamation Boazd is pointless because, noW that the Tatums have Tiled their damage suit in this Court purstrant to Colo. Rev. Star. § 34-33-135((1), the outcome of proceedings bel'ure fire Board can have no effect on this Court's resolution of the ultimate issue in all this litigation -Basin's liahility to the Tatums for additional damages as the result of post-1997 subsidence damage the company has caused to the "I'atums' residence. Although res judicala and collateral estoppel can attach to certain administrative decisions, Congress has provided as a mattcr of federal law that "the availability of [slate court judicial review of state administrative decisions under regulatory programs that implement the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 ("SMCRA"), 30U.S.C. §§ 1201-1:12X] shall not be construed to limit the operation ot'the righu established iit [SMCRA] section 520 except as provided therein." 30 U.S.C'. § 1276(e). Because SMCRA Section 52U, 3U U.S.C. § 1270, is the federal counterpart ofColo. Rcv. Star. § 34-33-135, the quoted provision prevente application ofthc doctrines uCres judicata or collateral estoppel Crum attaching to the outcome of administrative review before the Board in any way that might affect the outcome of the Tatutns' damage action in this Court. -2 -