Laserfiche WebLink
as a defendant .' The Amended Complaint alleges that the Board <br /> issued an order to Resources, but there is no allegation that an <br /> order ever was issued to the agents . Because they have not been <br /> the subject of an order, these defendants cannot have failed to <br /> comply therewith. Indeed, to hold them liable for an order issued <br /> to another party would violate fundamental notions of due process . <br /> Therefore, the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against <br /> these defendants . <br /> - Assuming arguendo that the named defendants were subject to <br /> the order issued to Resources, an action lies only for a <br /> "violation, failure, or refusal to comply" with that order. <br /> Here, the alleged violation consists of nonadherence to the <br /> Schedule. See Amended Complaint at 1 9 14 and 15 . The defendants <br /> contend that there has been no violation, but even if there were, <br /> it occurred at the earliest during the summer of 1992 (the first- <br /> scheduled deadline for performing reclamation activities) . By <br /> that time, however, these defendants were no longer "agents" of <br /> Resources within the meaning of the statute . <br /> After the Schedule was established, but before the first <br /> reclamation activities were scheduled to commence, Resources went <br /> into bankruptcy. When Resources went into bankruptcy, all agency <br /> relationships with it were revoked by operation of law. <br /> Restatement (Second) of Agency §§ 114, 124 (1958) ; 2 S. Williston <br /> & W. Jaeger, Williston on Contracts § 279 at 292-93 (3rd ed. <br /> ' The plaintiff' s failure to join Resources provides a <br /> separate ground for dismissal as set forth below. <br /> -5- <br />