My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1997-07-31_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1997-07-31_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/28/2021 9:49:01 AM
Creation date
5/2/2012 12:49:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
7/31/1997
Doc Name
Civil Action No. 97-CV-131 Plaintiff Reply to Defendants Amended Answer and Counterclaim
From
District Court County of Pitkin
To
Mid-Continent Resources Inc
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE <br /> (Frivolous and Groundless) <br /> 72. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the averments of paragraphs 1-60 <br /> and 63-71 of this Reply. <br /> 73. The Bankruptcy Court's Order on Motion to Reopen. attached as Exhibit <br /> A to Plaintiffs' Complaint. recites, on the first page of the Order, that "the County <br /> requested that this case be reopened because it asserts that it has not been paid in <br /> accordance with the Debtors' Second Amended Plan of Liquidation which was confirmed <br /> on April 11. 1994." On page 4. the Court states: -It is clear that the State court has <br /> jurisdiction over this dispute." The Court goes on to specifically state. on page 5: "The <br /> Bankruptcy Code's enforcement and modification provisions pertaining to Chapter 11 <br /> plans do not pre-empt a claim outside of the Bankruptcy Court for breach of contract <br /> premised on the plan of reorganization." It further states that "the State arena is the <br /> appropriate forum to resolve claims based upon an alleged breach of the provisions in a <br /> plan confirmed several years earlier." <br /> 74. The Bankruptcy Court has already interpreted its own rules, as related to <br /> the specific dispute at issue here, to determine that the State court has full jurisdiction for <br /> the claims made by Plaintiffs in their Complaint, which Defendants characterize, in <br /> paragraph 117 of their Answer and Counterclaim, as relief which is "essentially that <br /> sought in Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Bankruptcy Proceeding." <br /> 75. The prosecution of Defendants' Counterclaims and the assertion of <br /> defenses to Plaintiffs' claims relating to lack of jurisdiction by this Court based upon the <br /> premise of federal supremacy. pre-emption. or otherwise in connection with the <br /> Bankruptcy's Court jurisdiction, is substantially frivolous. substantially groundless, or <br /> substantially vexatious. as defined in Article 17 and Title 13. C.R.S., and in violation of <br /> Rule 11. C.R.C.P. <br /> 76. In addition. any defenses or counterclaims relating to an interpretation of <br /> the Plan, which is expressly contrary to the representations made in Defendants' <br /> Disclosure Statement. Exhibit O, are also substantially frivolous, substantially <br /> groundless, or substantially vexatious under the terms of that statute. and in violation of <br /> Rule 11. C.R.C.P. <br /> FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE <br /> (Statute of Limitations) <br /> 77. Defendants' claims are barred in whole or in part by applicable statutes of <br /> limitations. <br /> 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.