Laserfiche WebLink
<br />tally identifying those occasions on which new issues or <br />arguments were presented which expanded the scope cf the <br />litigation. The list of issues is not exhaustive. because <br />some issues plaintiffs raised were not addressed by defen- <br />dants. In my opinion' however. it accurately reflects the <br />manner and extent to which new issues have been raised <br />throughout the litigation. and even fcllowing the district <br />court's decision. <br />5. Plaintiffs' original complaint, filed en cr <br />about Gctober 22. 1981, contained the fcllowing issues, argu- <br />mentsr or claims: <br />a. The 54.G00 penalty assessed by defendants <br />did not comply with the standards of the Mined Land Recla- <br />mation Act and was exorbitant in propcrtion to the v(olaticn <br />and to plaintiffs' inccme (paras. 11+ 12). <br />b. Defendants exceeded their jurisdiction <br />and abused their discretion. <br />6. Plaintiff s• amended complaint. filed on cr about <br />December 22. 1981. added a claim asking the court to "review <br />the civil penalty levied by the Coloradc Mined Land Recla- <br />mation Board" pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. <br />C.R.S. 1973. 24-4-106 (para. 16). In scope and effect. <br />this claim (limited tc review of the civil penalty) was nc <br />broader than the initial c1aiR based (erronecusly• in defen- <br />dants' view) on rule 106. Colt. R. Civ. P. <br />7. Plaintiffs' opening brief ("Plaintiffs' Memo- <br />randum grief in Support of Setting Aside Civil Penalty Assessed <br />by Defendants"). filed on or about August 2. 1482. after <br />admitting that plaintiff s• operation required a permit. <br />which had not been obtained (at 1)• addressed its argument <br />to alleged deficiencies in the board's decision to impose a <br />64.000 fine for plaintiffs' illegal ccnduct cf a mining oper- <br />ation without a permit. <br />8. Plaintiffs' first reply brief ("Plaintiff s• Memo- <br />randum Drief in Support of Their '~oticn for Summary Judymert <br />and Reply Brief"), filed on cr about November 22. 1982. <br />raised the following new allegations nct theretofore addressed: <br />a. Defendants illegally failed to make find- <br />ings of fact or conclusions cf law (at 3). <br />b. Defendants denied plaintiffs due process <br />-2- <br />