Free Order on Motion for Hearing/Conference - District Court of Colorado - Colorado


File Size: 10.5 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Colorado
Category: District Court of Colorado
Author: unknown
Word Count: 349 Words, 2,009 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cod/25741/67.pdf

Download Order on Motion for Hearing/Conference - District Court of Colorado ( 10.5 kB)


Preview Order on Motion for Hearing/Conference - District Court of Colorado
Case 1:04-cv-01071-MSK

Document 67

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge John L. Kane Civil Action No. 04-cv-1071-AP S AN LUIS VALLEY ECOS YS TEM COUNS EL, NANCY ALBRIGHT, JAMES MARTIN, JERRE GUTHALS , S TEVE LEWIS , ANTLERS RIO GRANDE LODGE, INC., a Colorado corporation, and CHARLES C. POWERS , Plaintiffs, v. UNITED S TATES FORES T S ERVICE, Defendant, and ALXCHNG, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, CNXCHNG, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, and RIO OXBOW RANCH, INC., a Colorado corporation, Interveners.

MINUTE ORDER Judge John L. Kane ORDERS T he parties' Unopposed M otion to Set Status Conference (Doc. 66) is GRA N T ED . The conference is set for 10:00 a.m. on October 28, 2005, in Courtroom A802, Alfred A. A rraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th Street. The parties are advised that after a careful and thorough review of their respective positions on the M otions to Dismiss filed by Defendant Forest Service and Defendant Intervenors (Docs. 11 and 25), the court is inclined to distinguish Lodge Tower Condo. Ass'n v. L odge Properties, 880 F. Supp. 1370, 1380 (D. Colo. 1995), aff'd, 85 F.3d 476 (10th Cir. 1996) on the fact s and follow Desert Citizens Agains t Pollution v. Bisson, 231 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2000) and National

Case 1:04-cv-01071-MSK

Document 67

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 2 of 2

Credit Union Ass'n v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 522 U.S. 479, 492 (1998) to conclude P laintiffs meet the "zone of interests" requirement and therefore have standing to p urs ue the equal valuation challenge at issue in this case under the APA. The M otion for M ore Definite Statement in Doc. 11 directed to Count IV of the original Complaint, to the extent it remains at is sue after the filing of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, is DENIED. Because the presentation of evidence in support of st anding is not necessary, Plaintiffs' Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 32) is DENIED.

Dated: September 28, 2005