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
Resources, Inc., did not sign the civil penalty assessment Settlemen[ Agreement offered by the <br />Division within ten days of the Assessment Conference, and as a result the Division issued to <br />Basin Resources a Notice and Order to Pay Fixed Penalty on February 1, 2000. <br />On February 12, the Plaintiffs petitioned the Board for perntission to intervene in the <br />NOV hearine. The Plaintiffs asserted in their motion to intervene before the Boazd that <br />`'(a]ffirmance of (the NOV] would affect the [Plaintiffs] by satisfying their burden of proof in <br />any subsequent civil action for damages based on their claim that subsidence ...has caused the <br />new damage to Solitario Ranch.... Conversely, vacation of [the NOV] would aggrieve the <br />[Plaintiffs] by depriving them of the simplest means of satisfying their burden of proof in <br />subsequent litigation." In other words, the Plaintiffs intervened in the administrative agency <br />action (only a few weeks prior to the original hearing date) for the sole purpose of using the <br />agency process to protect and better their position in their own private iitigation against Basin. <br />On Mazch 8, 2001, appazently deciding that their interests were not being served by the <br />NOV proceedings before the Boazd, the Plaintiffs fumed anabout-face from their February 15, <br />2001, petition for intervention and requested, through a letter from their attorney to the Division, <br />"that the Division of Minerals and Geology vacate [the NOV] without prejudice." (Emphasis <br />in nrioinal). T.he letter ~x-ent nn to Mate: <br />Please let me emphasize that the (Plaintiffs] request vacation of (the NOV] only if <br />the Division does so without prejudice to its authority to issue a replacement <br />notice of violation in response to a renewed administrative enforcement request in <br />the furure. Such a request is highly unlikely, but unforeseen developments may <br />require the [Plaintiffs] to renew their pursuit of administrative relief, and they do <br />not advocate any measure that would foreclose their opportunity to do so. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.