REV96828 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 25, 2005. pefendants filed their Reply to Plaintiffs Supplemental Brief (#41 ] on March 4, 2005. This court has reviewed the Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, Response, the Reply, the supplemental briets, the exhibits, the entire case file, and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises. Upon turther review of the Plaintiffs Motion to Amend, the court has determined that the motion is dispositive The Tenth Circuit employs an "effects test to distinguish between dispositive and non- dispositive motions. See, e.g., First Union Mortgage v. Smith, 229 F.3d 992, 995 (10"' Cir. 2000). That is, the court must consider what effect the ruling on a particular motion will have on the final outcome of the case, rather than the designation on the face of the motion Here, as Plaintiff suggests in its Motion to Amend, if the court grants the motion to Amend, and adds the State of Colorado as a parry to this action, diversity jurisdiction will be destroyed? Under FEn. R. CN. P. 12(h)(3}, if a party has suggested a lack of jurisdiction the court "shall dismiss the action." Because Plaintiffs Motion to Amend may result in remand of this action, the potential effect of the motion is dispositive. See First Union Mortgage, 229 F.3d at 995-996 (finding a remand order to be dispositive because it is the functional equivalent of an order of dismissal). Therefore, this court issues this order in the forth of a recommendation rather than an order. For the reasons discussed below, the court recommends that the Motion to 'On Gktober 27, 2004, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand [#10], in which it seeks to remand this matter on alternate grounds. Plaintiff claims that this case does not have a sufficient amount in controversy to establish diversity jurisdiction. That motion will be moot if the court accepts and adopts this recommendation. 2