A long-running dispute between Montezuma County and the Ironwood Group is going to last even longer.
On Thursday, District Judge William Furse granted, in part, a motion by the Ironwood Group, LLC, asking Furse to disqualify himself from presiding over a punitive contempt hearing regarding Ironwood, owners of a mill facility on Road T between Cortez and Dolores.
The motion to disqualify Furse was filed late in the afternoon Wednesday – a day and a half before the contempt hearing was scheduled to begin.
Montezuma County and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment are the plaintiffs in a civil case against the Ironwood Group, owner Mark Harmon, and manager Kenneth Wade Bentley.
The original complaint, which was filed in 2022, says that Ironwood owned and operated a veneer manufacturing mill that ceased operations. This left a huge pile of wood chips that posed a fire danger, but the complaint says Ironwood’s owners failed to mitigate that.
On Nov. 23, 2022, District Judge Douglas Walker issued a stipulated injunction order specifying how Ironwood was supposed to deal with the wood chips.
On March 15, 2023, an amended stipulated injunction order was issued requiring the defendants to take various actions regarding the wood waste by May 31, 2023.
The plaintiffs maintain that the defendants failed to do that.
Recently, Ironwood sought to have the case dismissed because the plaintiffs at one point listed the wood pile as sitting on the wrong one of two adjoining parcels Ironwood owns, but on Oct. 9 of this year, Furse issued an order allowing the plaintiffs to correct the address.
On Oct. 12, the defendants filed a motion seeking to have the contempt hearing either vacated or continued, but on Tuesday, Furse denied that motion, writing:
“On October 12th, 2026, parties convened for a Status Conference during which the Defendants' sought a continuance. The Court denied this request. Since then, the Defendants' have filed an Expedited Motion to Vacate/Continue the Contempt Hearing. The Court finds it difficult to believe the Defendants are suffering from surprise or lack of preparedness related to issues that have been the subject of litigation since 2022 -- which includes the Defendants' confession of a 2023 contempt citation for conduct (or lack thereof) similar to the allegations contained in the contempt citation at issue now.”
The defendants then filed the motion seeking to disqualify Furse. He rejected one of their arguments for doing so, but found in favor of them on the other, which involved a rule that says, "[i]n an indirect contempt proceeding where punitive sanctions may be imposed, the
court may appoint special counsel to prosecute the contempt action. If the judge initiates the contempt proceedings, the person shall be advised of the right to have the action heard by another judge."
Furse found that “the Defendants have the right to seek an alternate judicial officer to preside over the pending contempt citation as it necessarily includes allegations of punitive contempt. As the Defendants' have invoked this right, the Court will oblige their request and order an alternative judicial officer preside over the contempt hearing.
“To be clear, this Order applies only to the pending contempt action and not the case at large. Following resolution of this finite issue, the case will return to Division 4.”
A setting conference for the matter is now set for Thursday, Oct. 22, at 8:30 a.m. before Judge Todd Plewe in the Montezuma courthouse.
