Laserfiche WebLink
the sovereign immunity argument should be dismissed. <br /> B. The Governmental Immunity Act Does Not Bar MCR's Claims <br /> DMG goes to great lengths attempting to convince this Court that MCR's second, third <br /> and fourth claims are actually tort claims subject to the Governmental Immunity Act and not <br /> contract claims for which governmental immunity is waived. However, as set forth in section IV <br /> above, a state court action to enforce a confirmed bankruptcy plan as a contract has been <br /> specifically authorized, not only by the Tenth Circuit in Paid i% Xlonts, supra, but also by the <br /> Bankruptcy Court in this very action. <br /> In its Motion to Dismiss, DMG attempts to convince this Court that because the <br /> definition of"Reclamation Plan" in the Liquidation Plan states that MCR's permit is governed by <br /> the terms of the Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act, C.R.S. § 34-33-101, et seq., <br /> ("Reclamation Act") MCR's claims are somehow converted to tort claims. This, however, is not <br /> the case. First, MCR asserts that the reclamation in Coal Basin is to be performed pursuant to <br /> the Reclamation Plan appearing in MCR's permit which was specifically approved by the State <br /> of Colorado. The phrase "governed by the terms of that Act" in the Liquidation Plan, refers to <br /> the fact that MCR's permit is governed by the Reclamation Act. However, even if DMG's <br /> argument is taken at face value - that the Reclamation Plan in MCR's permit must give way to <br /> the Reclamation Act - the language of the Liquidation Plan binds DMG to perform reclamation <br /> pursuant to the Reclamation Act. In other words, even under DMG's theory, performing <br /> reclamation pursuant to the Reclamation Act is a specific term and requirement of the <br /> Liquidation Plan contract and therefore, N4CR can sue to enforce compliance with the <br /> Reclamation Act. <br /> 10 <br />