Laserfiche WebLink
t. <br />Judgment. The plaintiff has failed to refute these admissions or <br />set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of <br />4 l <br />material fact to the contrary. See C.R.C.P. 56(e). Therefore, <br />the Court finds that there is no violation of the Order and hence <br />no basis for relief under the statute because the mine site was <br />■ iZ a being reclaimed as contemporaneously as practicable prior to the <br />% <br />h AA <br />The plaintiff's amended complaint is also premised upon the <br />4 d assertion that the alleged failure to reclaim poses a danger to <br />n the health or safety of the public. Amended Complaint, 1 14. The <br />■ 1 undisputed facts, however, show that there is no danger to public <br />Division taking over the reclamation process. <br />{ health or safety posed by the circumstances at the mine. The <br />a <br />h, 3 Divi.sion's own representatives have stated so both publicly and in <br />r deposition on at least three separate occasions. See Exhibits 7 <br />;s\ and 8 to Defendants' Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for <br />v <br />J <br />v) Summary Judgment; see also Attachment A to Defendants' Reply Brief <br />in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. <br />V) 0 Concerning the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief, <br />asking that the defendants be enjoined to reclaim the mine site, .re ,,..0 <br />d N` 5 - '5", 5 7 4 r I e y c 4-7 A..-..,r s <br />r ...%) the Court finds that the plaintiff's claim has been mooted by the <br />PJ d A- ,-1 6 ., /"- ( _' <br />Division's having taken over control of the mine site and the <br />reclamation process. See Exhibit 4 to Defendants' Memorandum <br />)4, <br />Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. <br />Concerning the plaintiff's claim for damages, the Court notes <br />that in a recent motion to amend, the Division seeks to <br />12_ <br />bT'd 992# WI3 T:OT S66T ' #T Hdti 9EEOTPE £SE T :01 re_inl.pu :WOdd <br />