Laserfiche WebLink
Providers, LLC," which is not its correct corporate name nor is it the name under which it made <br />its permit application. <br />By its attorneys, Clear Creek responds to the numbered allegations set forth in the <br />Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: <br />I. ANSWER TO PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS <br />1. Clear Creek admits the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. <br />2. Clear Creek admits the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. Clear Creek <br />admits that the document attached to the Complaint is a true copy of the Findings of Fact, <br />Conclusions of Law and Order of the Mined Land Reclamation Board in the Matter of Clear <br />Creek District Water Providers, LLC, File No. M-2004-067 (the "Order"), but avers that the <br />Order speaks for itself. <br />3. Clear Creek admits the allegation of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. <br />4. Clear Creek lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of <br />Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, and therefore denies it. <br />5. Clear Creek lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of <br />Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and therefore denies it. <br />6. Clear Creek admits that Chis Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted by the <br />City of Black Hawk against the Mined Land Reclamation Board and Clear Creek District Water <br />Providers, LLC. Clear Creek denies all the other allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. <br />7. Clear Creek denies the allegations of Paragraph 7. Clear Creek avers that <br />Construction Material Rule ("C.M.R.") 2.8.2 speaks for itself, that C.R.S. § 34-32.5-105 speaks <br />for itself, and that the remainder of Paragraph 7 states a legal conclusion. <br />8. In response to Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Clear Creek admits that the Mined <br />Land Reclamation Board ("MLRB") is a state agency. Clear Creek admits that venue in this <br />Court is proper but avers that C.R.C.P. 98(c)(1) and C.R.S. § 24-4-106(4) speak for themselves. <br />9. In response to Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Clear Creek admits that the City of <br />Black Hawk was a party to the hearing held before the MLRB on December 14, 2005. Clear <br />Creek admits that the Silver Dollar Metropolitan District and the Black Hawk Gaming <br />Association were present at that hearing, but denies all other allegations of Paragraph 9. <br />10. Paragraph 10 of the Complaint does not require a response from Clear Creek. <br />Clear Creek reserves the right to verify the record and object to any deficiencies or defects. <br />2 <br />