My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-05-17_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2011-05-17_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:33:35 PM
Creation date
10/17/2011 12:01:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
5/17/2011
Doc Name
Response to Plaintiff's Opposition
From
MLRB and DRMS
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.
/
5
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
MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD AND DIVISION OF <br />RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY'S RESPONSE TO <br />PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO JOINT RESPONSE TO MOTION TO <br />FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF BY THE CITY AND COUNTY OF <br />DENVER, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF WATER <br />COMMISSIONERS AND NORTH TABLE MOUNTAIN WATER AND <br />SANITATION DISTRICT <br />The Mined Land Reclamation Board ( "Board ") and the Division of Reclamation, <br />Mining and Safety ( "Division ") hereby respond as follows to Plaintiffs <br />Opposition to the Joint Response of the Board and Division to the Motion to File <br />Amicus Curiae Brief by the City and County of Denver, acting by and through <br />its Board of Water Commissioners and North Table Mountain Water and <br />Sanitation District ( "Water Providers' Motion "): <br />1. The City and County of Denver, acting by and through its Board of Water <br />Commissioners and North Table Mountain Water and Sanitation District filed <br />the Water Providers' Motion and an amicus curiae brief one day after the Board <br />and Division filed their Joint Answer Brief. <br />2. In response to the Water Providers' Motion, the Board and Division filed a <br />response to the motion and stated they have no objection to the motion and <br />provided case law that supports the motion. <br />3. Plaintiff now files an "Opposition" to the Board and Division's response to the <br />Water Providers' Motion. Plaintiff's "Opposition" is inappropriate and in any <br />event, meritless. <br />4. First, as parties to this action, the Board and Division are allowed to respond <br />to a motion filed in this matter. "Opposition" to a party's response to a motion is <br />not allowed under the civil rules of procedure. Plaintiff simply attempts to have <br />a second chance to respond to the Water Providers' Motion by filing an <br />"Opposition" to the Board and Division's response to such motion. Plaintiffs <br />attempt should be denied; Plaintiff has already filed an objection to the Water <br />Providers' Motion and should not be able to file another response to that motion. <br />5. Second, even if this Court chooses to allow Plaintiffs Opposition, such <br />opposition is meritless. As stated in the Board and Division's Joint Response to <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.