My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE34652
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE34652
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:44:30 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:17:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Name
MLRB COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF
Violation No.
CV2000009
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.
/
21
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
compensate the Plaintiffs for the diminution in value to their property they had suffered as a <br />result of Basin's operation, the Plaintiffs stood to gain a significant advantage by seeing the <br />administrative process through. It is true that Basin has requested a hearing on the merits of the <br />NOV, and the Board has determined that there will be a hearing on the NOV on April 2~, 2001, <br />but it is entirely possible that the Plaintiffs will prevail at the hearing and that the Boazd will find <br />that Basin caused damage to the Plaintiffs property. Because there is still a significant remedy <br />available to the Plaintiffs at the agency level, nameiy the ability to participate in and prevail at <br />the Board hearing on the NOV on Apri125, 2001, the Plaintiffs should not be allowed to <br />prematurely seek judicial review without exhausting that remedy. Because they have not <br />exhausted their administrative remedies, this matter is not yet ripe forjudicial review. Therefore, <br />the Court does not have jurisdiction over the matter and should dismiss the Complaint for <br />Judicial Review and deny the Plaintiffs' Application for Temporary Relief. <br />II. EVEN IF THIS COURT ASSERTS JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE, THE <br />PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF SHOULD BE DENIED <br />BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT MET THE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR <br />OBTAINING SUCH RELIEF UNDER THE STATUTE <br />A moving party may obtain temporary relief in a case forjudicial review under the <br />Ce!erado Sarface Coal Mining Reclamation .Act only upon a shnw~nv ;hnr rhrre is ?. "cttbctanria.l <br />likelihood" that the movant will prevail on the merits of the underlying judicial review action. <br />y 34-33-] 28(3)(b). In this case, Plaintiffs do not have a substantial likelihood of prevailing on <br />the merits of the judicial review action because they seek review of an agency's interpretation of <br />its own statute, and therefore beaz a heavy burden of proof against the countervailing legal <br />doctrine which allows great deference to an agency's interpretation of its own statute. <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.