Laserfiche WebLink
,J-1977-30? <br />all 0/i <br />V?- <br />11 <br />DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO <br />1437 Bannock Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80202 <br />COTTER CORPORATION (N.S.L.), <br />Plaintiff. <br />VS. <br />J COURT USE ONLY <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD and DIVISION OF <br />RECLAMA NING AND SAFETY, <br />Defendants. <br /> Case No.: 2010CV7609 <br /> Division: 209 f/k/a 6 <br />J <br />rT= ORDER <br />This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Joint Motion of the Land Reclamation Board <br />and Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety ("Defendants") to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third and Fourth <br />Claims for Relief. The Court has reviewed the motion, related pleadings, and all other legally relevant <br />material; is fully advised on the matter and makes the following findings and Order. <br />This case arises from the Mined Land Reclamation Board's Final Order issued August 11, 2010 <br />in which penalties were imposed on Plaintiff, Cotter Corporation, ("Plaintiff'). The Complaint for <br />Judicial Review, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief was filed on September 24, 2010 pursuant to C.R.S. <br />§ 24-4-106 (4), C.R.C.P. 57 0), Board Rule 2.7.3 (2), and C.R.C.P. 106 (4).1 <br />In claim three, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief under C.R.S. § 13-51-106 and Rule 57 asserting <br />that (1) a legal controversy exists with regard to "the application of the Board's regulations and the <br />Colorado Administrative Procedure Act to the enforcement proceedings" and (2) "the Board's decision to <br />accept new evidence from the Division after the Board had announced that testimony was closed, without <br />affording Cotter an opportunity for rebuttal, deprived Cotter of its due process rights to a full and fair <br />1 Plaintiff's second claim for relief pursuant to C. R.C.P. 106 (4) was dismissed via written Order on November 18, 2010. <br />I