My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE37501
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE37501
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:46:28 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 3:35:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
8/23/2001
Doc Name
THE TATUMS MOTION TO DISMISS
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.
/
17
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
remedies); 5aurl:ern Ohio Coal Co. v. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement, 20 F.3d <br />1418 (6th Cir. 1994) (same); Shawnee Coal Co. v. Andrus, 661 F.2d 1083 (6th Cir. 1981) (same). <br />In faithfully implementing SMCRA, see 30 U.S.C. § 1276(b), the Coal Act expressly requires that <br />judicial review of DMG enforcement action occur "solely on the record made before the board." <br />Colo. Rev. Star. § 34-33-128(2). This provision implicitly forbids courts from conducting judicial <br />review of future enforcement action, even where such action is cleazly threatened (as it certainly is <br />not is this case). This is so because the Baard cannot deve]op a record regarding any particular <br />enforcement action unless and until DMG fast issues it. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction <br />of this action because, in essence, it seeks review of enforcement action not yet taken and not yet <br />reviewed by the Boazd. <br />D. Basin's Demand for an Administrative Hearing on the Merits of Vacated <br />Enforcement Action Fails to State a Claim for Which Relief Mav Be Granted. <br />Basin asserts that Colo. Rev. Star. § 34-33-124(1)(a) grants the company an absolute right <br />to an administrative hearing on the merits of Notice of Violation Cv-2000-009, even where DMG <br />exercises its authority to vacate that enforcement action and thus moots the matter and removes the <br />need for a hearing altogether. 1n essence, Basin asserts the claim that the Coal Act does not <br />authorize DMG to vacate a notice of violation over the objection of any parry who has requested a <br />hearing on the action. <br />Basin's construction of Colo. Rev. Star. § 34-33-124(1)(a) reads one isolated provision of <br />the statute out of context. In doing so, $asin asks this Court to ignore provisions of § 34-33- <br />124(a)(1), other sections of the Coal Act, and the statute's implementing regulations, all of which <br />cleazly vest DMG with authority to vacate enforcement action prior to an administrative hearing. <br />-11- <br />!lS-d Bl0/4l0'd OE9-1 ESSE999E9E S3Jtl00E3tl 1tl801tlN 10Uit08d 4l~Zl 1002-EZ-9f1tl <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.