ENFORCE34971

• Permit No: M1974041
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Name: AMENDED COMPLAINT PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~ • . III IIIIIIIIIIIII III
' '~
'- `DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO
Case No. 85CV7526, Courtroom
AMENDED COMPLAINT/PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEL]
BRINKMANN-WOODWARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff,
vs.
DAVID C. SHELTON, Director of the Ftined Land Reclamation
Division, Department of Natural Resources, State of
Colorado; MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD, Department of
Natural Resources, State of Colorado; EARL LAWRENCE, d/b/a
Lawrence Construction Company; LAWRENCE CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, a Colorado corporation; and COOLEY GRAVEL
COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, Defendants.
The plaintiff, Brinkmann-Woodward Construction Company, by
and through its attorneys, Bayer, Carey & McG~e, P.C., for an
amended complaint/petition again the defendants, David C.
Shelton, Director of the Mined Land Reclamation Division,
Department of Natural Resources, State of Colorado; Mined Land
Reclamation Board, Department of Natural Resources, State of
Colorado; Earl Lawrence, d/b/a Lawrence Construction Company;
Lawrence Construction Company, a Colorado corporation; and Cooley
Gravel Company, a Colorado corporation, for a judicial review of
agency action pursuant to C.R.S. §24-4-106 (1973 as amended),
states as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIOC]S
1. On or about May 22, 1965, the Mined Land Reclamation
Board (hereinafter referred to as "MLRB") conducted a formal
hearing in connection with the Lawrence Pit, file No. 74-41,
purportedly pursuant to C.R.S. §34-32-129, Eor the purpose of
determining whether there existed any violations of the pro-
visions of the Colocado Mined Land Reclamation Act and to
consider the issuance of a cease and desist order.
2. On that date and at that time, the plaintiff, Brinkmann-
Woodward Construction Company, orally requested on the record to
be admitted as a party, on the grounds that plaintiff was an
affected or aggrieved party, pursuant to law and statute, and the
plaintiff orally objected on the record to waiver by the
defendant, Lawrence Construction Company, of and the MLRB's
acceptance of the waiver of the following:
A. C.R.S. §34-32-129(1) and Rules 8.13 and 8.22, which