HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140252.tiff RECEIVED
JAN 222014
DISTRICT COURT, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO WELD COUNTY
Weld County Courthouse COMMISSIONERS
901 9th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Plaintiffs:
BILL BARRETT CORPORATION and A COURT USE ONLY A
BONANZA CREEK ENERGY, INC.,
Civil Action No.: 13 CV 30928
Involuntary Plaintiffs:
STATE OF COLORADO; Division: 5
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO; and
NOBLE ENERGY, INC.,
v.
Defendants:
SAND HILLS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, f/k/a
ALTAMIRA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 6;
UNITED WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT; and
THE TOWN OF LOCHBUIE, COLORADO.
Darrell G. Waas, #10003
Mikaela V. Rivera, #34085
WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNSON&VELASQUEZ LLP
1350 17th Street, Suite 450
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 720.351.4700
Facsimile: 720.351.4745
waas@wcrlegal.com
riverawcrlegal.com
ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Defendants Sand Hills Metropolitan District, f/k/a Altamira Metropolitan District No. 6
("Sand Hills") and United Water and Sanitation District (collectively, the "Districts"), by and
through their undersigned counsel, answer the Amended Complaint as follows:
1. The allegations of the "Introduction" and paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 15, 23, 27, 30, 31,
32, 33,38, 41, 43, 45, 47, 52, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 71, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86,
87, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 and 102 are denied.
02 o?OI CC,' CR' LvrlQ� � 2014-0252
2. With respect to the allegations of paragraphs 1, 2, 8, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 44, the
Districts are without sufficient information to admit or deny those allegations and, therefore,
denies them.
3. The allegations of paragraphs 3, 4, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28, 37, 39 and 40 are admitted.
4. With respect to paragraphs 9 and 10 the Districts state that the allegations are
legal conclusions, not a factual assertions and, therefore, no response is required, but otherwise
denies the allegations and affirmatively states that some or all of the actions complained of
constitute legislative acts over which this Court does not have jurisdiction.
5. The allegations of paragraphs 16, 24, 25, and 49 contain references to documents,
which speak for themselves.
6. With respect to paragraphs 11, 58, 64, 69, 76, 81, 90, 96 and 103, the Districts
incorporate their responses to the respective preceding allegations.
7. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 17, the Districts admit that the Board
of Directors of Sand Hills and United Water and Sanitation District have members in common.
The Districts deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 17.
8. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 29, the Districts admit that on
March 30, 2009, Mr. Lembke executed a Petition for Inclusion of Property as an authorized
signatory of 70 Ranch, LLC, the language of which speaks for itself. The remaining allegations
of paragraph 29 are denied.
9. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 34, the Districts admit that the 2010
budget adopted by Sand Hills on November 24, 2009 included an "IGA Payment" of$912,275.
The remaining allegations of paragraph 34 are denied.
10. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 35, the Districts admit Sand Hills has
entered into a Funding Agreement with United Water and Sanitation District, which is attached
to the Complaint. The language of the Funding Agreement speaks for itself.
11. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 36, United Water and Sanitation
District includes land located within Elbert County. The remaining allegations of paragraph 36
are denied
12. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 42, the Districts admit Sand Hills has
certified a mill levy for its "general operating expenses" each year, including 2008. The
remaining allegations of paragraph 42 are denied.
13. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 46, C.R.S. § 32-1-207(1) speaks for
itself. The remaining allegations of paragraph 46 are denied
{00019461/1)
2
14. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 48, C.R.S. § 32-1-207(2) speaks for
itself The remaining allegations of paragraph 48 are denied.
15. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 50, the language of the Updated and
Revised Service Plan speaks for itself. The remaining allegations of paragraph 50 are denied.
16. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 51, C.R.S §§ 32-1-103(20) and 32-1-
203(2) speak for themselves. The remaining allegations of paragraph 51 are denied.
17. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 53, the Districts admit that Plaintiff
Bonanza Creek sent the attached letter, the language of which speaks for itself. The remaining
allegations of paragraph 53 are denied.
18. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 54, C.R.S. § 32-1-202(2.1) speaks for
itself. The remaining allegations of paragraph 54 are denied.
19. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 55, the Notice of Intention Pursuant
to §32-1-207(3)(b) speaks for itself The remaining allegations of paragraph 55 are denied.
20. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 56, the Districts admit that a public
hearing was held by the Town of Lochbuie Board of Trustees on December 17, 2013 and that the
Board of Trustees approved an Updated and Revised Service Plan on December 23, 2013. The
remaining allegations of paragraph 56 are denied.
21. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 57, the Districts admit that the Town
has received a check from Sand Hills. The remaining allegations of paragraph 57 are denied.
22. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 59, C.R.S. § 32-1-1101(1)(a) speaks
for itself
23. With respect to the allegations of paragraphs 65 and 72, C.R.S. § 32-1-207 speaks
for itself.
24. With respect to the allegations of paragraphs 70, C.R.S. § 32-1-203(1) speaks for
itself.
25. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 77, C.R.S. § 32-1-202(2.1) speaks for
itself
26. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 82, C.R.S. § 32-1-206(2) speaks for
itself. The remaining allegations of paragraph 82 are denied.
27. With respect to the allegations of paragraphs 91 and 92, the language of
Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights speaks for itself
(00019461/1}
3
28. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 104, C.R.S. § 13-51-101 et seq.
speaks for itself.
29. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 105(a)-(g) and the Prayer For Relief;
the Districts deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any declaratory or other relief sought.
30. Any allegation not specifically admitted herein is denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Plaintiffs' claims are barred for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
2. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver.
3. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
4. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
5. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
6. Plaintiffs' claims are barred for lack of standing.
7. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by res judicata.
8. Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief under the Colorado Constitution, Article X,
§20 ("TABOR").
9. To the extent the Sand Hills is subject to TABOR, Sand Hills has complied with
all applicable provisions of TABOR.
10. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because Sand Hills has complied with all applicable
statutory provisions for inclusion of property.
11. Some or all of Plaintiffs' claims are barred by sovereign immunity.
12. Some or all of Plaintiffs' claims are immune from judicial review because they
are legislative acts.
13. Some or all of Plaintiffs' claims are immune from judicial review by C.R.S. § 32-
1-206.
14. Sand Hills has complied with all applicable statutory provisions for the approval
of the Updated and Revised Service Plan.
{00019461/1}
4
WHEREFORE, the Districts pray that Plaintiffs be denied all requested relief, that
judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiffs, for an award of costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees as allowed by law, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
THE DISTRICTS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES TRIABLE.
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of January, 2014.
WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNSON &
VELAS EZ LLP
By: /s i aela V Rivera
Darrell G. Waas
Mikaela V. Rivera
Attorneys for Defendants Sand Hills
Metropolitan District and United Water and
Sanitation District
{00019461/1}
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 17th day of January, 2014, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND was filed and/or
served electronically via ICCES and/or sent via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Richard Kirk Mueller John W. Suthers,Attorney General
Ann T. Lebeck Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center
Davis Graham& Stubbs LLP 1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
1550 Seventeenth Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80203
Denver, CO 80202
kirk.mueller@dgslaw.com
ann.lebeck@dgslaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bill Barrett
Corporation and Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc.
Steve Moreno Robert Leo, Senior Counsel
Clerk and Recorder Noble Energy, Inc.
Weld County, Colorado 1625 Broadway, #2200
1402 N. 17th Avenue Denver, CO 80202
Greeley, CO 80631
Attorney for Involuntary Plaintiff-Noble
Energy, Inc.
Maureen Juran
Widner Michow& Cox LLP
13133 East Arapahoe Road, Suite 100
Centennial, CO 80112
mj uran(a�wmcattomevs.com
Attorney for Defendant The Town of Lochbuie
/s/Karen A. Gomes
Karen A. Gomes
In accordance with C.R.C.P. 121 §1-26(9), a printed copy of this doc ith original
signature(s) is maintained by Watts Campbell Rivera Johnson & Velasquez LLP, and will be
made available for inspection by other parties or the Court upon request
{00019461/1}
6
Your filing is successfully submitted to the court.This filing is not considered final until it is accepted by the court.
Filing Information:
Filing ID:7E1B6FE65D478
Court Location:Nkld County
Case Number:2013CV030928
Case Caption:Bill Barrett Corporation et al v.Sand Hills Metropolitan District
Authorized Date:01/17/2014 1:36 PM
Submitted By:Karen Gomes
Filing Party(ies):
Party /I Type Status !Attorney
Sand Hills Metropolitan Defendant I Darrell G Waas(Waas Campbell Rivera Johnson&Velasquez LLP),Mikeele Veronica Rivera(Wars Campbell Rivera I
I District II I Johnson&Velasquez LLP)
Documents:
Document ID Event Title I Statutory Fee
!D5BAd5C8BTB51 Answer w/Jury Demand Answer to Amended Complaint and Jury Demand $348.0O --�
Service:
Party I Type Attorney Organization 1 Method
Bill Barrett Corporation Plaintiff Richard Kirk Mueller Davis Graham&Stubbs LLP EServioa I
li Bill Barrett Corporation I Plaintiff I Ann Tuxbury Leberk Davis Graham&Stubbs LLP EServire j
Bonanza Creek Energy Inc 'Plaintiff I Richard Kirk Mueller Davis Graham&Stubbs LLP EServioa
Bonanza Creek Energy Inc IPlaintiff Ann Tuxbury Lebeck Davis Graham&Stubbs LLP E-Service
Submission Options:
Note To Clerk:N/A
Primary Attorney:Mikaela Veronica Rivera
Authorizer.Mikaela Veronica Rem
Submit Options:Submit to the court and serve selected parties.
Billing Information:
Statutory Filing Fees:$348.00
Filing Fee:$6.00
Service Fees:$7.50
Total Fees:$361.50
Billing Reference:1508.001
Hello