Laserfiche WebLink
- Z04 (- 0 O ~ <br /> <br />~~ <br />~r t-o yr, , <br />-ro : .~i <br />~c~ WEE <br />AL5 <br />~~~~: <br />~®~ , <br />,J i~;; E4 2. 20~~ <br />n car ~ n r rcJF <br />DISTRICT COURT, DENVER COUNTY, AtTORNEvGENFRAt <br />Colorado <br />1437 Bannock Street, Rm. 256 <br />Denver, CO 80202 <br />{303 640-2491 <br />MARILYN BOYNTON, <br />Plaintiffs <br />v. <br />COLORADO MINED LAND RECLAMATION <br />BOARD {a Colorado State Agency), et aL <br />Defendants. ~ COURT USE ONLY ~ <br />I Attorneys for Plaintiff Marilyn Boynton: <br />Mary Elizabeth Geiger, Esq., Atty. # 3233] Case Number: O1CV3425 <br />Mark E. Hamilton, Esq., Atty. # 24585 <br />CALOIA, HOUPT & HAMILTON, P.C. Hon. William D. Robbins <br />1204 Grand Avenue <br />Glenwood Springs, CO 8160] Division 7 <br />Phone: 970-945-6067 <br />Fax: 970-945-6292 <br />e-mail: mem so ris.net <br />MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF <br />COURT ORDER DATED AUGUST 11, 2003 <br />Plaintiff Marilyn Boynton ("Boynton"), through her counsel of record, Caloia, Houpt & <br />Hamilton, P.C., respectfully submits this Motion for Clarification of Court Order dated August <br />11, 2003, and in support thereof states as follows: <br />1. In the Court's Order dated August 11, 2003 ("Order"), the Court agreed with Plaintiffs in <br />this case that the Pre-Rearing Conference held in this administrative matter on May i5, 2001, <br />should have been recorded as it was an adjudicatory hearing. The Court also stated that it was <br />"miable to rule on the merits of the order from the fuial hearing (grouting Four States' <br />reclamation permit) until the final hearing officer has had an opportunity to determine what <br />changes to the evidence, if any, would be required by a properly conducted Pre-Trio] Hearing," <br />and remanded this case to the Mined Land Reclamation Board ("MLIt$") "for a properly <br />conducted (that is recorded) Pre-Trial hearing to be followed by a rehearing of the Final Hearing <br />wherein the properly lodged and preserved objections by the Plaintiffs are addressed." <br />2. Ms. Boynton takes the position that the Court's language set forth above (that it catutot <br />make a full and final decision on the merits until there is a properly conducted Pre-Trial Heariog) <br />means that the Court wishes to review the transcript from the October 24, 2003 Pre-Heariog <br />Conferenoe and December l6, 2003 Formal Hearing in conjunction with the parties' briefs in <br />this matter to determine whether Four States' application should have been granted. To <br />demonstt-ate why such a review is important, Ms. Boynton sets forth below some examples from <br />BOYNTON-motion for clarification <br />