A construction company is suing the operators of Spoil to Soil for reportedly failing to pay invoices for contracted work on multiple projects.
The legal action coincides with a monthslong conflict between the Summit County government and the operators, as well as Spoil to Soil’s property owners, over a list of alleged violations at the composting and recycling facility.
Max P. Construction filed the lawsuit against Mimbach Co. in Summit County’s Third District Court last week. Jared and Kristen Clayton own the Spoil to Soil property, but Mimbach Co. serves as its supervisors, overseeing the land, its operations and employees.
The complaint claimed the construction company agreed to provide trucks and other vehicles needed to haul materials to and from work sites for a fee, with Mimbach Co. enlisting the business for its services at least 11 times throughout 2024.
Specifically, Mimbach Co. has an outstanding debt of $22,059, including interest, according to court documents. The lawsuit claimed the unpaid invoices represent a breach of contract and good faith, as well as “unjust enrichment” because Mimbach Co. seemingly benefited from the construction work.
The complaint requested Third District Judge Richard Mrazik award the construction company the full $22,059 in damages, as well as attorney fees. Mimbach Co. has not yet responded to the lawsuit in court, and there were no hearings scheduled as of Wednesday morning.
Mimbach Co. is also listed as a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the Summit County government earlier this month that called out a perceived “pattern of escalating procedural irregularities” in the county’s approach to rectifying alleged violations on the Spoil to Soil property in Browns Canyon.
The complaint acknowledged the County Council offered Spoil to Soil a six-month period to fix outstanding issues. However, it also said the county simultaneously issued notices of violation “that made compliance impossible.”
The lawsuit called the County Council’s methodology a “procedural ambush” and claimed the disciplinary action was “driven by hundreds of complaints from a business competitor.” It further alleged the county failed to follow due process procedures because staff initiated proceedings “based on vague ‘potential violations.’”
The document said reports were not provided to Spoil to Soil in advance despite staff presenting a list of 50 alleged violations “days before critical hearings.” The recycling facility’s attorneys also said the County Council had seemingly “recharacterized” allowed uses on the property, even though the uses in question were previously discussed and authorized when the company acquired its conditional use permit.
“The county treats (Spoil to Soil) materially differently from similarly situated neighbors in the same AG-80 zone,” the lawsuit said. “While neighbors … are permitted to engage in soil processing and green waste handling — often under more lenient operating hours and snow-storage rules — (Spoil to Soil has) been shut down for the exact same conduct.”
The complaint further claimed Summit County targeted Spoil to Soil by initiating a multi-department investigation and engaging in “arbitrary and selective enforcement.”
“The county’s actions have also interfered with (Spoil to Soil’s) business relationships and customer goodwill, including communications and enforcement actions that signal (Spoil to Soil) cannot lawfully operate,” the lawsuit said. “Loss of goodwill and customer relationships constitutes irreparable harm not fully compensable through monetary damages.”
Spoil to Soil is seeking a reversal of the County Council’s decision, as well as monetary damages and attorney fees. The lawsuit also asked Mrazik to issue a temporary order allowing Spoil to Soil to continue its operations under the existing conditional use permit.
County attorneys are expected to file a response to the temporary order request by the end of the day on Monday based on an extension Mrazik granted earlier this week.