_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (181)

Home Browse Search

The cases cited by the defendants are simply inapplicable to the case at hand. The defendants' cases speak to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. This doctrine applies to situations in which court actions are brought before there is an initial deter- mination by an agency with expertise of the issues involved in the court proceedings. In such cases, some courts defer to the agency for an initial determination of the issues. See United States v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. , 339 F.Supp. 554 (D. Colo. 1971) ; Litvak Meat Co. v. Denver Stock Yard Co. , 303 F.Supp. 715 (D. Colo. 1969) . Here, the Board has already determined the issues; the Di- vision is merely seeking enforcement of the Board's actions and such enforcement is authorized by § 34-33-123 (12) , C.R.S. (1984) . Contrary to the defendants' argument, there is no poten- tial for inconsistent decisions or duplication or piecemeal reso- lution; any notices of violation required under the statute to be sent by the Division do not interfere with, nor are they incon- sistent with, the present action. Moreover, the court has the power to grant any relief that is appropriate to the case at hand. The defendants' argument fails. D. RESOURCES IS NOT AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY TO THIS ACTION. The defendants allege that Resources is an indispensable party and that complete relief cannot be accorded without Resources being joined in this action. See C.R.C.P. 19. The ba- sis for this argument is that Resources is the owner of the prop- erty upon which reclamation must be performed. The defendants' argument is transparent. Resources is a corporate entity and can only act through its officers and directors. Defendants Robert Delaney and John Reeves are the officers and directors of Resources (as well as Resources' parent company, Minerals) . Thus, they can effectuate the right to enter the property for reclamation purposes. Moreover, even if the defendants cannot gain access to the property, there still is no need for Resources to be joined as a party. The complaint requests either that the defendants perform reclamation, or that they pay for reclamation. Thus, this court can grant complete relief without Resources being a party by requiring the defendants to pay for the reclamation rather than to perform it. The defendants also argue that Resources has an interest in the property and that the defendants may be subject to double, multiple, or inconsistent obligations. This argument is only relevant if Resources asserts it. C.R.C.P. 19 states that a -9-