Laserfiche WebLink
C. Defendants also fail to rebut the constitutional infirmities inherent in the <br />imposition of civil penalties under these circumstances. <br />In its Opening Brief, Cotter established that imposition of civil penalties on a claimant <br />seeking judicial review of an agency award raises a serious question of whether the statutory <br />provision would be upheld as constitutional. (Opening Brief at 16, citing Industrial Comm'n v <br />Continental Invest. Co., 277 P. 303, 304 (Colo. 1929).) Cotter also cited well - established <br />authority that, rather than wade into this constitutional quagmire, the Court should interpret the <br />Act based on the reasonable reading that it does not give the Board power to impose civil <br />penalties in these circumstances. (Opening Brief at 16, citing Adams County School Dist. No. 50 <br />v. Heimer, 919 P.2d 786, 792 (Colo. 1996).) <br />In their Joint Answer Brief, Defendants do not respond to this argument and make no <br />attempt to distinguish the holding in Industrial Commission. Therefore, Defendants have <br />conceded this point, and the Court should follow the Colorado Supreme Court's admonition to <br />interpret a statute in a manner that avoids constitutional questions. See Adams County, 919 P.2d <br />at 792. <br />Defendants also fail to rebut Cotter's argument that, under Colorado law, it is a basic <br />constitutional principle that only courts, not administrative agencies, should wield the power to <br />hold parties in contempt for failure to comply with an administrative or judicial order. While <br />Defendants contend the December 2010 Order is not akin to a contempt order because "the <br />Board simply ordered Cotter to stop violating the August Order" (Joint Answer Brief at 27), this <br />9 <br />