Laserfiche WebLink
the Division violated or will violate MCR's Liquidation Plan by performing certain reclamation <br /> projects. MCR bases its argument on the allegation that the Liquidation Plan"incorporated" a <br /> reclamation plan,that the Liquidation Plan is a contract, and that certain of the Division's <br /> reclamation activities constitute a breach of that contract and breach of the duty of good faith and <br /> fair dealing. MCR also calls for an injunction to prevent certain planned reclamation activities, <br /> and for declaratory judgment regarding its responsibility under a State water-quality control <br /> permit. <br /> The Division now moves to dismiss MCR's claims 2, 3, 4, and 6 because MCR fails to <br /> state a claim upon which relief can be granted, MCR's claims are barred by the Colorado <br /> Governmental Immunity Act, MCR has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and/or MCR <br /> fails to establish the requirements of standing. <br /> II. STANDARD OF REVIEW <br /> Where a party moves to dismiss claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can <br /> be granted pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5), the court should assume all facts alleged by the <br /> claimant, here MCR,to be true. Schmaltz v. St. Luke's Hosn., 33 Colo.App. 351, 521 P.2d 787, <br /> 788 (1974), modified 188 Colo. 353, 534 P.2d 781 (1975). Motions to dismiss for failure to state <br /> a claim are limited to the complaint. Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, 829 P.2d 1286, <br /> 1290 (Colo. 1992). <br /> Sovereign immunity issues involve subject matter jurisdiction and are to be <br /> determined in accordance with C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1). Fogg v. Macaluso, 892 P.2d 271, 276 (Colo. <br /> 1995). A trial court is authorized to make appropriate factual findings under that rule. Id. The <br /> party seeking to establish the public entity's liability has the burden of proving jurisdiction. <br /> 4 <br />