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
f <br /> c <br /> Tulbot, 124 F.3d 1201 (10"' Cir. 1997), both state that a confirmed bankruptcy plan is like a <br /> judgment, neither case precludes a contract enforcement action and in fact, Puul specifically alloys <br /> it. Further, even if, as DMG asserts, there can be no breach of contract claim to enforce a <br /> bankruptcy plan, these cases certainly do not preclude actions to enforce the judgment. The <br /> practical effect is the same: DMG agreed to a specific bankruptcy plan that called for reclamation to <br /> be performed under the terms of the Reclamation Plan in MCR's permit, and now that DMG has <br /> refused to follow that plan, MCR can move to enforce it. If MCR's claims should have been <br /> denominated "Claim to Enforce a Judgment," this Court should construe them as such (Rule 1, the <br /> rules are to be construed liberally to secure just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every <br /> action), or alternatively this Court should allow amendment to put a different name on the claims <br /> (Rule 15(a), leave to amend pleadings, should be freely given when justice so requires). <br /> V. DMG IS NOT IMMUNE FROM MCR'S CLAIMS <br /> A. Any Immunity That the State May Have in This Matter has Been Waived by <br /> Federal Bankruptcy Law. <br /> DMG's Motion to Dismiss contains a lengthy discussion of the Colorado Governmental <br /> Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101, et seq. However, absent from that entire discussion is any <br /> mention of 11 U.S.C. § 106, entitled "Waiver of Sovereign Immunity." <br /> 11 U.S.C. § 106(b), operates to waive D.'v,1G's governmental immunity. That section states. <br /> "A governmental unit that has filed a proof of claim in the case is deemed to have waived sovereign <br /> immunity with respect to a claim against such governmental unit that is property of the estate and <br /> that arose out of the same transaction or occurrence out of which the claim of such governmental <br /> unit arose." The State of Colorado and its a-encies is such a "governmental unit." 11 U.S.C. § <br /> 101(27). There is no dispute in this case that DMG filed a proof of claim in MCR's bankruptcy <br /> case. See Exhibit 1, attached. Further, the $3 million in cash and credits that the Liquidation Plan <br /> 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.