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
III. THIS IS AN ACTION CONTESTING THE JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY <br />OF THE BOARD BROUGHT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELAY AND THE BOARD IS <br />ENTITLEA TO ITS COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES <br />In addition to being entitled to costs, expenses and attomey fees pursuant to § .4-33- <br />128(4), C.R.S., the Boazd is also entitled to such costs and attomey fees under the APA because <br />the Plaintiffs have appazently challenged the Boazd's jurisdiction and authority solely for the <br />purpose of delaying the agency process. § 24-4-106(8), C.R.S. <br />Up until March 8, 2001, the Plaintiffs were satisfied to use the agency enforcement <br />process to obtain a favorable finding against Basin that they could then use to obtain a financial <br />judgment against Basin in a later civil action. On Mazch 8, 2001, however, the Plaintiffs <br />suddenly decided that they "did not wish to waste their time or resources by proceeding as <br />parties to a fundamentally ftawed admimsuative adjudication ...." As a result of that <br />determination, and because the Plaintiffs had decided to seek relief in this Court in a civil action, <br />they decided to withdraw their complaint and request that the Division vacate the NOV without <br />prejudice. Complaint for Judicial Review, ¶ 24. In short, the Plaintiffs decided they did not like <br />the forum in which they found themselves and they decided to go elsewhere to seek their <br />fortunes. Unfortunately, they mistakenly believed that they had the right or ability to shut down <br />the agency's enforcement action. Now, the Board has reviewed the Division's vacation of the <br />NOV and has found it to be an improper exercise of authority, and the $oazd has therefore <br />reinstated the NOV and scheduled it for a hearing. <br />The Board's action on its face is rather innocuous, merely a weighing and determination <br />of the interleaved authority and jurisdiction of the Division and Board. Under most <br />circumstances it would not receive much attention from anyone but the Boazd and the Division. <br />16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.