Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br /> rags 4, under AGREEMENT <br /> Paragraph 6,second line, add between"Agreement" and Pitkin County"the language of <br /> "including paragraph 9,below." This is to reflect that paragraph 6 is subject to the new <br /> paragraph to be added which reflects DMG's ability to join MCR, MidCon and/or the Trustee <br /> as parties if DMG is sued for reclamation or water quality issues by a third party, essentially <br /> the language to be used in paragraph 8. <br /> Page 5.undglc AGREEMENT <br /> In paragraph 7, in the ninth line, that line should be ch"ged to read"related in any way to <br /> the Lawsuit or coal mining or reclamation activities performed or to be g& o e by DMG." <br /> This language is consistent with,the agreement that MCR, the Trustee, and MidCon releases <br /> DMG from liability for any reclamation that it has conducted, or will conduct, in Coal Basin. <br /> Pages 5 and 6,under.AGREEMENT- <br /> Paragraph 8 is too broad in terms of the parties which can join the Division as a party and in <br /> terms of when they can do so. Only parties to the present lawsuit should be covered by this <br /> language and not the rest of the entities listed, such as MidContinent Minerals Corporation <br /> and all the agents, spouses, attorneys, etc. of MCR,the Trustee and MidCon. Accordingly, <br /> on page 6, in the continuation of paragraph 8, lines 1-4 should be changed to delete all the <br /> listed entities except MCR, the Trustee and MidCon. <br /> In addition, language needs to be added to show that DMG has had some connection with the <br /> reclamation activities and Water quality issues which are the subject of the lawsuit. <br /> otherwise there is no basis for the Division to be brought into the suit as a party. This <br /> concern can be resolved by my previous suggestion to you that the Division be made a party <br /> only if a court determines that DMG is a necessary party under C.R-.C.P. 19. It is my position <br /> that a Rule 19 determination must be the basis for impleading the Division into a lawsuit <br /> brought by a third party. I believe that any reason for bringing in the Division not covered <br /> by the terms of C.R.C.P. 19 would be in derogation of the basis for this agreement. I would <br /> like to know your specific reasons for not using Rule 19 as the benchmark for bringing the <br /> Division into a third party lawsuit. <br /> Also, in the last three lines of paragraph 8, language should be added to the present language <br /> to reflect that MCR, MidCon, and the Trustee will not assert any alle tga ions as well as any <br /> claims for relief or remedies above and beyond those asserted by the party or parties <br /> initiating the lawsuit. <br /> Add a new paragraph 9 to reflect the Division's ability to join MCR,the Trustee, and/or <br /> MidCon to a suit brought against the Division concerning reclamation or for any claim <br /> 20 'd Z2:8 66, 8Z fiPW 8SS2998£Oi:XPd <br />