Laserfiche WebLink
defendant Mid-Continent Minerals Corporation (v. 4, pp. 143-45 . <br /> - 147) . ) <br /> Subsequent to the filing of their answer, the defendants <br /> filed a motion to dismiss asserting, among other things, that <br /> relief in this case could not be granted because the dates in the <br /> reclamation schedule had passed (v. 1, pp. 46-57) . The plaintiff <br /> filed its response on April 12 , 1994 (v. 1, pp. 67-76) , and 'the ' <br /> defendants filed a reply brief on May 6, 1994 (v. 1, pp. 86-97) . <br /> In November 1994, the defendants filed a motion for summary <br /> judgment (v. 1, p. 168) . The motion alleged that the present <br /> cause of action was moot because a liquidation plan had been <br /> confirmed in MCR' s bankruptcy proceedings, which plan provided <br /> for funding for reclamation (v. 1 , pp. 169-178) . The plaintiff <br /> responded that the funding called for under the liquidation plan <br /> was not guaranteed, but was contingent on sales of estate proper- <br /> ty, and that the defendants could still perform reclamation even <br /> though DMG had contracted out for a portion of the reclamation <br /> work to be performed (v. 1 , pp. 231-241; see also the confirmed <br /> liquidation plan at v. 1, pp. 251 -269 ) . The trial court set a <br /> hearing on both motions for March 27 , 1995 (see generally v. 3) . <br /> Prior to the hearing and while discovery was on-going, the <br /> plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint (v. 2 , p. 405) . <br /> Two bases were given for the motion. First, an updated cost <br /> estimate had been recently completed by the Division which <br /> indicated that reclamation costs would now be substantially in <br /> excess of $3 million (v. 2 , p. 407) . Second, MCR' s liquidation <br /> 5 <br />