Laserfiche WebLink
the current NOV. It is important to note the precise issues involved in these <br />litigations and what issues remained at the time of the settlement agreement. <br />Tatums v. MLRB, (01 CV 038) (request for temporary relief from Bc <br />order reinstating vacated NOV) <br />Tatums filed suit in district court asking for temporary relief from the <br />Board's April 10, 2001 order. Basin Resources and the Board participated <br />in this court action; the Division chose not to participate. The Tatums <br />alleged that the Division had the authority to vacate the NOV without <br />prejudice and the Board had no authority to review the Division's action. <br />The Tatums also alleged that Basin Resources had no standing to ask for <br />review of the Division's action since it was not adversely affected by the <br />vacation of the NOV. The Tatums requested postponement of the Board's <br />order and to cancel the Board's April 25 hearing. <br />I <br />The Board objected to Tatum's motion for temporary relief and asked that <br />the case be dismissed. The Board alleged that its April 10, 2001 order was <br />not a final one and even if the order was ripe for review, the Tatums could <br />not show a substantial likelihood that they will prevail. <br />Basin Resources argued that the Board's order was interlocutory and not <br />reviewable. It also asserted that because the Division vacated the NOV <br />without prejudice, it !lacked finality and also adversely affected Basin <br />Resources because the company faced the risk of new enforcement action by <br />the Division. <br />On April 27, 2001, the district court granted Tatums' motion for temporary <br />relief from the Board's order. The parties had stipulated that two of the <br />three criteria for temporary relief were met (all parties received notice and <br />there would be no health or safety issue if relief were granted). The only <br />issue was whether th;eTatums established a substantial likelihood of <br />prevailing on the merits of the case. <br />I <br />In granting the Tatums temporary relief, the court found that it had <br />jurisdiction to review the Board's April 10, 2001 order; that the Board's <br />finding that Basin Resources was adversely affected by the Division's <br />vacation of the NOVi lacked evidence in the record; and that Tatums had <br />shown a substantial likelihood they would prevail on the merits. The court