Laserfiche WebLink
interest has allegedly "terminated"; and (2) that Stinson's legal interests are "adequately <br />protected" by Defendants. <br />3. Defendants' argument is simply non-sensical. How can Defendants "adequately <br />protect" Stinson's leasehold interest in this action if their legal position is directly adverse to <br />Stinson's? Defendants' very response to the Motion to Intervene demonstrates why intervention <br />in this action is so important. <br />4. The first part of Defendants' response appazently constitutes an argument that for <br />some reason Stinson's leasehold interest has terminated, and that Stinson has no legal rights to <br />the property at issue, notwithstanding the lease agreement attached to Stinson's Complaint in <br />Intervention. If, as Defendants azgue, Stinson has no claim for relief against Defendants, <br />Defendants should welcome the opportunity of allowing Stinson to intervene so that they may <br />file an appropriate diapositive motion. The alternative, of course, is for Stinson to file a separate <br />action for breach of the lease agreement attached to the Complaint in Intervention. This would <br />be an inefficient use of judicial resources, and simply makes no sense in light of the existing <br />controversy between Plaintiff and Defendants. <br />5. Defendants' second argument is that through this lawsuit they are somehow <br />"adequately protecting" Stinson's interest in this case. It should be apparent that if Stinson <br />believed his interest was adequately protected by Defendants he would not seek to intervene in <br />the first place. Moreover, it is hard to imagine how Defendants (who have taken the position that <br />Stinson has no legal interest in the property at issue) can "adequately protect" his legal interest in <br />this case. Defendants do not attempt to explain this conundrum and do not appear to have <br />thought through their own arguments. <br />6. Because it is the policy of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure to avoid a <br />multiplicity of actions, the rule relating to intervention is liberally construed so that all related <br />controversies can be determined in one suit. Great Neck Plaza. L.P. v. Le Peeo Restaurants. <br />LLC, 37 P.3d 485 (Colo. App. 2001). <br />7. Stated simply, Stinson has a leasehold interest in the property at issue. The <br />outcome of this litigation will impact his legal rights. He is not currently adequately protected, <br />and intervention in this lawsuit will prove to be the most efficient and reasonable method of <br />resolving this entire dispute. <br />