Laserfiche WebLink
<br />13.D. In response to Paragraph 13.D. of the Complaint, Clear Creek denies all of the <br />allegations of that paragraph. <br />13.E. In response to Paragraph 13.E. of the Complaint, Clear Creek denies all of the <br />allegations of that paragraph. <br />13.F. In response to Pazagraph 13,F. of the Complaint, Clear Creek denies all of the <br />allegations of that paragraph. <br />13.G. In response to Paragraph 13.G. of the Complaint, Clear Creek denies all of the <br />allegations of that paragraph. <br />14. Any allegations not expressly admitted in the Complaint are hereby denied. <br />AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES <br />Clear Creek asserts the following affirmative defenses in response to the Complaint: <br />1. The Complaint fails to state a claim on which this Court may grant relief. <br />2. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims brought by Plaintiffs Silver Dollar <br />Metropolitan District and Black Hawk Gaming Association. <br />3. On information and belief, Plaintiffs Silver Dollar Metropolitan District and <br />Black Hawk Gaming Association failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and, for this <br />reason as well as others, lack standing to bring the claims asserted in the Complaint. <br />4. On information and belief, Plaintiffs Silver Dollaz Metropolitan District and <br />Black Hawk Gaming Association have failed to assert any legally protected interest that would <br />arguably be harmed by the decision of the MLRB, and lack standing to bring the claims asserted <br />in the Complaint. <br />5. On information and belief, Plaintiff Black Hawk Gaming Association failed to <br />appeaz at the Pre-Hearing Conference held November 21, 2005 pursuant to C.M.R. § 2.7.3, was <br />not a party to the administrative hearing conducted by the MLRB, and may not seek judicial <br />review of the MLRB's decision. <br />6. On information and belief, the Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole or in part, by <br />the doctrines of waiver and estoppel. <br />7. The Plaintiffs' claims are without merit and should be dismissed, because the <br />MLRB's decision was made after a proceeding conducted in compliance with statutory and <br />regulatory requirements, at which the MLRB received and deliberated upon substantial evidence <br />in the record of the proceedings. <br />4 <br />