Laserfiche WebLink
Plaintiff Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.) ( "Cotter ") respectfully submits, by and through <br />counsel, the following Opposition to Joint Response by the Mined Land Reclamation Board and <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety to Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief by the City <br />and County of Denver, Acting by and through its Board of Water Commissioners and North <br />Table Mountain Water and Sanitation District ( "Response ") in Case Number 2010CV7609. <br />In an apparent attempt to fill in the blanks left by Denver Water and Table Mountain <br />Water and Sanitation District (collectively, "Amici "), the Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />( "Board ") and the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety ( "Division ") responded to the <br />Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief ( "Motion "). However, the Response identifies no language <br />in C.R.S. § 24 -4 -106, which governs here, to suggest that it is proper to permit a stranger to the <br />agency adjudicatory proceeding to file an amicus brief in an appeal to the district court. <br />Moreover, one of the cases cited in the Response actually dictates precluding Amici from <br />appearing in this action. In United States v. Ahmed, 788 F. Supp. 196 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), the <br />court denied a request to file an amicus brief. The defendant there was charged with bail <br />jumping, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers sought "to appear as amicus <br />curiae on behalf of the defendant." Id. at 198 & n.1. The court denied leave to appear as amicus <br />curiae because "defendant's interests are adequately represented by his counsel." Id. at 198 n.1. <br />Here, nothing has been cited even remotely suggesting that the interests of the Board and the <br />Division are not adequately represented by their current counsel. Thus, the Motion should be <br />denied. <br />1 One of the cases cited by Denver Water in its Reply also shows why the Amici's motion <br />should be denied. In Jones Day v. Blockshopper LLC, 2008 WL 4925644 *6 (N.D. Ill. 2008), the <br />court denied a motion for leave to file amicus brief, finding an "amicus brief should only be <br />2 <br />