Laserfiche WebLink
The rationale for the Lopez rule is also instructive. The Rule is intended to ensure the <br />efficient administration of appeals by preventing two tribunals from simultaneously reviewing <br />the same order. Lopez, 887 P.2d at 14. Cotter's own actions undermined this policy. Cotter <br />repeatedly and aggressively argued for reconsideration of the substantive corrective actions <br />after it had filed for judicial review. The Board followed the same rationale articulated in <br />Lopez when it rejected these arguments. R:0225, 3 -7 (Board chairman Ira Paulin explaining, <br />"they've [Cotter] appealed our order. You know, so the district court can tell us whether — <br />whether we were wrong or not ... we can't hear the whole case again. "). <br />B) The Board did not violate the Constitution by using regulatory tools to enforce <br />compliance with the August Order and prevent ongoing violations of the Act. <br />Cotter raises novel constitutional arguments in an attempt to avoid the burden of proof <br />required to obtain a stay under the APA. Cotter's arguments lack credibility from the outset <br />because the legislature designed the APA's procedures to assure that all parties are afforded due <br />process of law. C.R.S. § 24- 4- 105(1) (2010). By asserting constitutional claims rather than <br />requesting a stay, Cotter avoids the burden of proving that enforcement of the August Order <br />would result in irreparable injury, and avoids the possibility that the Court might require Cotter <br />to post security to protect the public interest. See C.R.S. § 24- 4- 106(5) (2010). Cotter's <br />constitutional arguments lack both credibility and legal support. <br />The Board did not violate the constitution when it sought to enforce the August Order <br />and prevent ongoing violations of the Act. Cotter attempts to characterize the November hearing <br />as an unconstitutional "contempt" hearing. Cotter's argument fails because the Board did not <br />and could not hold Cotter in contempt. Contempt is a self- executing judicial sanction described <br />in Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 107. Contempt includes, among other things, a court's <br />22 <br />