Laserfiche WebLink
14 <br />The parties have fully briefed the issues, and oral argument <br />was heard by the Court on March 27, 1995. Based on the <br />submissions of the parties, the Court finds that there are no <br />genuine issues of material fact, and summary judgment for the <br />defendants is therefore appropriate. <br />The Court articulates below the bases for its decision. In <br />light of the Court's ruling, it is unnecessary to address <br />individually each and every one of the numerous arguments raised <br />by the defendants. <br />The Division's case is premised on the allegation that <br />defendants, as purported agents of Resources, violated, failed, or <br />refused to comply with the May 22, 1991 Board Order by not <br />performing reclamation in accordance with the Schedule set forth <br />in such Board Order. Amended Complaint, at It 12, 32. The <br />Schedule contemplated that reclamation would begin June 1, 1992 if <br />the mine did not sell. The undisputed facts, however, show that <br />the Board postponed compliance with the May 22, 1991 Board Order <br />and its incorporated Schedule while Resources negotiated with a <br />potential buyer. S Furthermore, the Board modified the Schedule, <br />YN 1 extending the date of commencement of reclamation from June 1, <br />? h <br />J 1992 to August 3, 1992, with additional reclamation envisioned to <br />follow in 1993 and 1994. <br />In July 1992, the potential buyer backed out. When the Board <br />then decided to revoke Resources' permit at its August, 1992 <br />meeting, it recognized that the reclamation schedule initially <br />-9- <br />TT'd 99E# WUTT:OT S66T `PT NdtJ 9EEOTtZ EOE T :01 Ie.an1Pu :WOad <br />