Laserfiche WebLink
The Mined Land Reclamation Board ("Board") and the Division of Reclamation, <br />Mining and Safety ("Division") hereby jointly request the Court to dismiss <br />Plaintiff's Third and Fourth Claims for Relief. <br />CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH C.R.C.P. 121 & 1-15 <br />Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-15(8) (Committee Comment), conferring is not <br />appropriate prior to filing a motion to dismiss. <br />1. Background <br />Plaintiff filed a complaint in September 2010 requesting judicial review <br />under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and under C.R.C.P. 106,' <br />a declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief in regard to the Board's August <br />11, 2010 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order ("August 11 <br />Order"). The Board issued its August 11 Order after the Division issued in <br />May 2010 a Notice of Reason to Believe a Violation Exists and the Board <br />held a hearing on that Notice on July 12, 2010. <br />2. On September 16, 2010, the Division issued a Notice of Reason to Believe a <br />Violation Exists ("September 16 Notice"). The September 16 Notice alleged <br />that Plaintiff violated the Board's August 11 Order by failing to fully <br />comply with it. On November 17 and 18, 2010, the Board held a hearing, in <br />which Plaintiff and the Division participated, concerning the Division's <br />September 16 Notice. <br />II. The provisions for a declaratory order are not available <br />because the APA provides an adequate remedy <br />3. In its Third Claim for Relief, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment for the <br />"purpose of terminating an existing legal controversy which has arisen <br />between Cotter and the Board regarding the application of the Board's <br />regulations and the APA to the enforcement proceedings" concerning Notice <br />of Violation No. MV-2010-018 (i.e., the August 11 Order) (Compl. ¶ 67). <br />Plaintiff specifically cites two reasons it believes it is entitled to a <br />declaration: (1) its allegation that the Board accepted new evidence from the <br />'On the Board's Motion, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief for judicial <br />review under C.R.C.P. 106 on November 18, 2010. <br />2