Rooney Valley News

 

 

Several folks have asked for an update on this pending case.

As you may recall, the Rooney Valley developers, led by Big Sky/CDN (Tom Morton and Three Canadian Investors) sued the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District to try to force Green Mountain to establish Big Sky (Tom Morton) as the new sanitation district for Rooney Valley.

 

Here is the prior status report from December:

Big Sky, Cardel, Three Dinos v. Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District – Latest Update

 

 

Here are the most recent developments:

 

At the meeting last night, counsel for the board announced that there would be a public “process” to discuss the settlement options.  Stay tuned as to the format and dates.

As stated in prior blogs, if the district wants to provide sanitation service outside of the district there are options, including  inclusion (like annexing these other areas) or through an intergovernmental agreement (to provide service without including the new area in the district).  There are pros and cons on all the options.

 

Dates:

Trial – Continued from March 15 to August 16, 2021

Discovery cut off – June 28, 2021

 

Here is a list of the other deadlines:

Order_ Joint Motion to Reset Case Deadlines- Approved

 

Mediation:

From a report by the plaintiffs dated February 15, 2021:  “The parties participated in a day long mediation session on January 15, 2021 before Judge Naves of the Judicial Arbiter Group (”JAG”). The mediation was set to continue on January 25, 2021 but was rescheduled to February 8, 2021. The February 8, 2021 session was vacated as settlement discussions continued to take place outside of the mediation. Settlement conversations are ongoing, and the parties anticipate more mediation sessions in the future.”

 

Pending Motions:

From a report on the status of pending motions filed January 27, 2021:

“. . . The parties also believe that it might be useful for the Court to have the motions classified by type in order to assist with prioritizing them for consideration and disposition. The following paragraphs list several categories of motions that remain pending.

2. The following motions are pending that deal with discovery, the pleadings, and trial procedure:

a. Motion to Quash Subpoenas Pursuant to C.R.C.P.

b. Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer, filed by Green Mountain on October 8, 2020.

c. Motion to Strike Jury Demand, filed by Big Sky on August 19, 2020.

3. There are also pending motions for summary judgment, partial summary judgment, and motions to dismiss, portions of which were resolved by this Court’s orders of January 29, 2020 and October 26, 2020.

Judge Bachmeyer held in the January 29 order that the April 9, 2019 Green Mountain resolution purporting to terminate the Big Sky IGA was not a quasi-judicial act for which review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) was the sole remedy, as contended by Green Mountain.

The October 26 order denied those portions of Green Mountain’s motions to dismiss which contended that the developer plaintiffs lacked standing to sue as third-party beneficiaries of the Big Sky IGA.

The portions of the following motions that were not resolved by the Court’s previous orders remain pending:

a. Motion to Dismiss filed by Green Mountain on October 24, 2019 in the Cardel Homes case, Case No. 2019cv31250.

b. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under C.R.C.P. 56(a), filed by Big Sky on September 11, 2019.

c. Motion to Dismiss filed by Green Mountain on September 11, 2019 in the Stream Realty case, Case No. 2019cv31172.

d. Motion to Dismiss filed by Green Mountain on September 11, 2019 in the 3 Dinos case, Case No. 2019cv31185.

e. Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Green Mountain on September 11, 2019.

f. Motion to Dismiss filed by Green Mountain on September 11, 2019 in the CDN case, Case No. 2019cv31158.

4. Green Mountain has also recently, on January 21, 2021, filed a cross-motion for summary judgment which is not yet ripe and has not been fully briefed.

5. There is also one pending motion filed by Green Mountain in the organizational case for Big Sky, Case No. 2014CV31904, entitled “Response to Notice and Motion to Enjoin.”

This motion was in response to Big Sky’s publication of notice that it intended to proceed with entering into intergovernmental agreements and service agreements to provide sanitary sewer service to properties in the Rooney Valley including those owned by the developer plaintiffs.

Green Mountain contended that the notice was moot, because Green Mountain had terminated the Big Sky IGA, and that the IGA was outside the permitted scope of services under the Big Sky Service Plan.

These same issues were also raised by the pending motions for summary judgment and motions to dismiss.

6. There are pending motions regarding whether the Big Sky case should be tried to a jury, whether Green Mountain should be able to amend its answer to add counterclaims, and whether summary judgment should be granted based upon the scope of Big Sky’s Service Plan, the Local Government Budget Law, or whether the Big Sky Board of Directors is validly constituted.

Resolution of these issues is critical to a properly structured trial which conserves the parties’ resources.”

 

John Henderson

(Disclaimer – This blog is solely my work and does not attempt to represent the position of the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District or any individual member of the District.  The Board was not aware of and did not have an opportunity to review this blog.  I have been asked on occasion to provide advice and counsel to the board on a pro/bono basis but this blog, again, is independent of any consulting role I may have provided.  All of the information contained in the blog is based upon public information or analysis independent of any consulting role I may have provided to the Board.  No information was obtained from the board or obtained in the context of providing service to the board.)