Laserfiche WebLink
circumstances of the matter at hand. See section 34-33-123 , <br /> C. R. S. ( 1984 ) . See also La Plata Medical Center Associates, Ltd. <br /> v United Bank of Durango, 857 P. 2d 410 (Colo. 1993) ( The power <br /> to fashion equitable remedies lies within the sound discretion of <br /> the trial court) ; Moreland v. Marwich, Ltd. , 665 P. 2d 613 (Colo. <br /> 1983 ) (To accomplish justice, a court of equity may fashion a <br /> remedy suitable to the circumstances of the case) . Accordingly, <br /> the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be denied. <br /> The defendants also claim that the Division' s failure to <br /> reclaim immediately shows that a delay in reclamation does not <br /> pose any health or safety danqer . Since the time of the filing <br /> of the present complaint, maintenance work has been performed at <br /> the site. Subject to the availability of funds, the Division <br /> will do maintenance work in an attempt to minimize the potential <br /> for environmental harm. It reclamation and maintenance are not <br /> funded and performed , then Resourcet: ' nine site will continue to <br /> pose a danger to the safety of the environment and of the public. <br /> (Sec, Exhibit C) . <br /> C. MONEY JUDGMENT <br /> The defendants nex' 1r-lilt, ' h +' they deserve to have their <br /> Motion for Summary Judgment granted because the Division has not <br /> alleged a present injury in its. request for monetary relief. The <br /> defendants' motion should be denied in the first instance because <br /> as agents they have failed to reclaim the site in accordance with <br />