Laserfiche WebLink
n <br />''' substantially increase the amount of damages it claims against the <br />4) C : defendants. The Court notes that in issuing and renewing <br />() Resources' permit, the Division reviewed the cost of reclamation <br />� <br />t. <br />on several occasions and estimated the cost at approximately $3 <br />ka Q million each time. Furthermore, when the Division filed this <br />case, that is the amount which it claimed, and that is also the <br />c ?, s-c 7Z, 4-7 / S /}- r/ 77., 1r7 w'4"5 f- 5'e- c p_ yep C G .Y / , <br />v <br />amount claimed by the Division in Resources' bankruptcy. <br />■ Therefore, the Court rules that the Division may not now increase <br />d C the amount of damages it seeks for reclamation. <br />Finally, the Court finds that the Division's case against <br />these defendants amounts to an improper effort to obtain a <br />prejudgment attachment. The undisputed facts demonstrate that <br />under the circumstances of this case, the defendants have not <br />violated, failed, or refused to comply with a Board order and <br />therefore that the Division is not entitled to proceed with this <br />action. <br />For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court therefore grants <br />summary judgment in favor of the defendants and orders the <br />complaint to be dismissed with prejudice. <br />IT IS SO ORDERED. <br />DONE THIS DAY OF , 1995. <br />Judge William L. Jones <br />-13- <br />9T"d 99E# WUET:OT S66T `PT ?Idt! 9EEOTPE E@E T :01 TPJfl Pu :WOdd <br />