Laserfiche WebLink
There are limited exceptions to the requirement that a party seeking judicial intervention <br /> exhaust his or her administrative remedies. None of them applies here. For instance, the <br /> doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where the agency lacks <br /> authority to pass on the question raised by the party or where it is clear beyond a reasonable <br /> doubt that further administrative review by the agency would be futile. See Golden's Cement, <br /> supra. By statute, the Health Department has the authority to determine the issue raised in <br /> MCR's amended complaint, see parts 200 - 600 of article 8 of title 25, C.R.S., and there is no <br /> indication that it would be futile for the agency to review this issue. On the contrary, any <br /> decision by the Health Department would likely moot the issue that MCR now raises in its sixth <br /> claim for relief. Under these circumstances, this claim should be dismissed based on the Court's <br /> lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Golden's Cement, sura; Horrell v. Department of Admin., <br /> 861 P.2d 1194 (Colo. 1993). <br /> B. MCR Does Not Allege Sufficient Controversy Regarding the NPDES Permit Status to <br /> Establish Standing Thus Precluding Declaratory Judgment and Requiring Dismissal of the <br /> Sixth Claim Pursuant to C.R.C.P. I2(b)(5). <br /> MCR's sixth claim seeks a declaratory judgment. The claim fails to submit a justiciable <br /> controversy to the Court and is therefore ripe for dismissal for failure to establish standing. "The <br /> question of standing involves a consideration of whether a plaintiff has asserted a legal basis on <br /> which a claim for relief can be predicated. The answer to the standing issue requires an analysis <br /> of whether the plaintiff has alleged an injury in fact and, if so, whether the injury is to a legally <br /> protected or cognizable interest." Board of County Comm'rs, La Plata County v. <br /> Bowen/Edwards Assoc. Inc., 830 P.2d 1045, 1052 (Colo. 1992), citing Wimberly v. Ettenberg, <br /> 194 Colo. 163, 168, 570 P.2d 535, 539 (1977). "These two considerations provide the <br /> 16 <br />