My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1999-04-26_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1999-04-26_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2021 12:36:58 PM
Creation date
5/3/2012 9:33:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
4/26/1999
Doc Name
3rd party plaintiff's response
From
US District Court
To
Mid-Continent Resources, Inc. & DMG
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.
/
17
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
reclamation as it sees fit, citing United,States v. Nave o Freight Lines, Inc., 339 F.Supp. 554 (D. <br /> Colo. 1970-, Litvak Meat Co. v. Denver Union Stockyard C'o., 303 F.Supp. 715 (D. Colo. 1969) and <br /> Heron v. City of Denver, 1 )1 Colo. 501, 283 P.2d 647 (1955). However, none of those cases <br /> applies to the current dispute. In each of those cases, the government was regulating private <br /> activities pursuant to specific regulatory and statutory schemes. Here, DMG is not regulating <br /> private activity at all, rather it is performing reclamation work with funds received from MCR's <br /> bankruptcy estate that are to be expended pursuant to the specific terms of MCR's Liquidation Plan. <br /> Even assuming, arguendo, that DMG should be accorded wide discretion in its reclamation <br /> activities, the Court can and should hold DMG in check when it abuses its discretion. Colorado <br /> Real Estate Commission v. Hanegan, 947 P.2d 933, 935 (Colo. 1997). Attached as Exhibit L is a <br /> summary report from MCR's reclamation experts, Greg Lewicki and Michael S. Savage <br /> summarizing a few of the instances of DMG's waste of bankruptcy fiends and lack of compliance <br /> with the Reclamation Plan. <br /> Finally, DMG cites State Personnel Board v. Lloycl, GILD., 752 P.2d 559 (Colo. 1988). <br /> Again, this case has no application to the instant matter because that case was decided on the <br /> plaintiffs failure to follow the notice provisions under the applicable statute. <br /> In summary, none of the cases cited by DMG has facts analogous to this situation where the <br /> State has fully participated in a bankruptcy Liquidation Plan and then actually become the actor <br /> itself by taking over the reclamation of the project. Consequently, DMG's position is baseless and <br /> its Motion should be denied. <br /> D. MCR's Fourth Claim is not Barred by Sovereign Immunity <br /> MCR's Fourth Claim for Relief is for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing for <br /> DMG's failure to perform reclamation in a reasonable and economic manner. For all the reasons <br /> 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.