Laserfiche WebLink
admitted that it had not complied with those corrective actions. R:0252, 12 -17. Cotter instead <br />argued that the Board lacked authority to take enforcement action, and asserted various <br />affirmative defenses to excuse its non - compliance. The Board considered Cotter's arguments <br />and ultimately found them without merit. The Board imposed a cease and desist order and <br />$39,000 in civil penalties for the 78 days of non - compliance occurring from the August Order to <br />the November hearing. R:0170. Both Cotter and the Division were afforded the opportunity to <br />comment on the Board's draft order. R:0154a, 0155 -59, 0160 -63. On December 8, 2010, the <br />Board issued its final order ( "December Order "). On January 7, 2011, Cotter filed its complaint <br />seeking judicial review of the December Order (2011CV 170, "Cotter II "). The Court <br />consolidated Cotter I and Cotter II on March 23, 2011. <br />SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT <br />The Board and the Division are required to take action to enforce the Act. Here, the <br />Division asked the Board to use regulatory tools to compel Cotter to comply with corrective <br />actions that were required to remedy ongoing violations. After weighing the evidence, the Board <br />agreed, assessing civil penalties and issuing a cease and desist order to enforce the August Order <br />and prevent the ongoing violations identified therein. The Court should uphold the cease and <br />desist order and civil penalties because both had a reasonable basis in law and were warranted by <br />substantial evidence in the administrative record. <br />The Board's decision to issue a cease and desist order had a reasonable basis in law and <br />was warranted by the record. Cotter admitted that it failed to implement two of the corrective <br />actions in the August Order. The Board had determined that those corrective actions were <br />required to remedy violations of the Act. The Act expressly authorizes the Board to issue cease <br />