Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> 3. Claim 6 is not ripe because of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and MCR <br /> does not have standing. <br /> DMG asserts that the first argument is purely legal and the Court can base its ruling solely <br /> on the pleadings and the law. However, this Court should consider additional important facts and <br /> instead treat this argument as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 as allowed by Rule <br /> 12(b). The second argument should be decided under the standard of Trinity Broadcasting of <br /> DC'i1ivi-, Inc. r. City of ff'estminster. 848 P2d 916 (Colo. 1993) which allows the Court to consider <br /> evidence to determine any disputed facts regarding jurisdiction. Finally, in support of its third <br /> argument, DMG has attached a permit renewal filed by MCR in October 1998. MCR feels that this <br /> Court should consider extrinsic evidence on this issue as well. Therefore, MCR has attached <br /> several documents regarding this issue and asserts that the Court should treat this issue in the same <br /> manner as issue 1, above. <br /> IV. THE BANKRUPTCY LIQUIDATION PLAN IS A CONTRACT <br /> ENFORCEABLE IN THIS COURT <br /> In attempting to persuade this Court that MCR cannot request enforcement of the <br /> Bankruptcy Liquidation Plan, DMG does not mention an order entered by the Bankruptcy Court in <br /> MCR's bankruptcy case and attached as Exhibit A to the very first pleading in this case (Exhibit A <br /> to Complaint in this case filed by Pitkin County on April 29, 1997). Before Pitkin County filed this <br /> case against MCR for back takes, the County first tried to bring its action in Bankruptcy Court. <br /> The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the County's action holding that the proper forum for such an <br /> action was state court. Several continents from the Bankruptcy Court are relevant here. The Court <br /> stated in part, <br /> All of the creditors had notice and are bound by the Plan's language which <br /> permits the County to exercise those rights and remedies in the state courts. To the <br /> extent the County is not satisfied that the Plan's repayment terms have been met, it <br /> 5 <br />