My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-12-02_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2010-12-02_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:27:31 PM
Creation date
12/10/2010 9:31:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
12/2/2010
Doc Name
Joint Motion
From
AGO
To
District Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado
Email Name
DB2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
(Colo. App. 2008) (when issues presented in litigation become moot because <br />of subsequent events, court will decline to render an opinion on the merits of <br />appeal); Van Schaack Holdings, LTD., v. L. C. Fulenwider, 798 P.2d 424 <br />(Colo. App. 1990) (issues presented in litigation became moot because of <br />subsequent events; court declines to render opinion on the merits). When <br />conduct sought to be addressed by either declaratory or injunctive relief is <br />peculiar to a particular event that has already occurred, the finality of the <br />event in a manner incapable of repetition moots the controversy. State Bd <br />of Chiropractic Exam'rs v. St ernholm, 935 P.2d 959 (Colo. 1997). <br />8. As stated above, in the present case, Plaintiff did not obtain an injunction to <br />enjoin the Division's enforcement of the Board's August 11 Order through its <br />September 16 Notice or to enjoin the Board from holding a hearing on the <br />Division's September 16 Notice. Thus, given that on November 17 and 18, <br />2010 the Board held a hearing on the Division's September 16 Notice, <br />Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is moot. Id; Barnes v. Dist. Ct., in & <br />for the City & County of Denver, 607 P.2d 1008 (Colo. 1980) (Court finds <br />case moot when Commissioner approves rates that,were subject of litigation). <br />9. To the extent Plaintiff requests a permanent injunction regarding the Board's <br />August 11 Order in conjunction with its judicial review claim under the <br />APA, Plaintiff has an adequate remedy under the APA since the APA allows <br />for injunctive relief. § 24-4-106(7), C.R.S. (2010); Jeffrey v. Colo. State <br />Dep't of Soc. Servs., supra. <br />WHEREFORE, the Board and Division respectfully request that this Court <br />dismiss Plaintiff s Third and Fourth Claims for Relief. <br />Dated this 2nd day of December 2010. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />JOHN W. SUTHERS <br />Attorney General <br />/s/ John J. Roberts <br />JOHN J. ROBERTS, 30124* <br />Assistant Attorney General <br />Agriculture/Professional Unit <br />4
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.