My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-06-14_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2011-06-14_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:34:28 PM
Creation date
8/10/2011 2:35:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
6/14/2011
Doc Name
Opening Brief of Plaintiff Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.)
From
Cotter Corporation
To
District Court
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.
/
33
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
prepared to present testimony and evidence that it would have taken over a year to even begin <br />dewatering the Mine and treating the Mine pool water. AR:0261:17 -22. <br />On December 8, 2010, the Board issued the December 2010 Order. AR:0166 -72. It <br />found Cotter "in violation of § 34 -32 -124, C.R.S., for failure to comply with the conditions of an <br />order, permit, or regulation; and of Rule 3.3.2, operating with a permit or exploring with a notice <br />of intent, failure to comply." AR:0170. It also "issue[d] a cease and desist order to" Cotter, but <br />did not identify the actions Cotter was supposed to cease and desist. Id. It "reactivate[d] the <br />suspended portion of the civil penalty previously assessed and ma[de] due the total civil penalty <br />of $55,000." Id. It also "assesse[d] a civil penalty for 78 days of violation at $500 per day for a <br />civil penalty of $39,000," and stated the "civil penalties must be submitted within 60 days of <br />November 18, 2010." Id. <br />SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT <br />In its December 2010 Order, the Board essentially held Cotter in contempt — and imposed <br />significant civil penalties — for violating the August 2010 Order (from which Cotter has <br />separately appealed). By arrogating this purely judicial power, the Board acted contrary to law <br />and without statutory authority. The December 2010 Order must be set aside for several <br />independent reasons. <br />First, the December 2010 Order should be set aside because it enforces the August 2010 <br />Order which, in turn, is invalid for the reasons stated in Cotter's appeal in Case No. <br />2010CV7609. To the extent the Court sets aside the August 2010 Order, it must also set aside <br />the December 2010 Order. <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.