Laserfiche WebLink
investigation, which revealed that there were additional parties holding interest in the <br />Property. Further, the purpose of the amendment is to bring before the court all parties <br />having an interest in the Property for a complete adjudication of Plaintiffs rights therein. <br />Based on the foregoing, therefore, the court recommends that Plaintiffs Motion to <br />Amend be granted <br />B. Diversity Jurisdiction. <br />Plaintiff argues that ff the amendment is granted, the presence of the State of <br />Colorado, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, its constituent Division of <br />Parks and Outdoor Recreation, and Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation <br />(colledively "State of Colorado') as a defendants will destroy diversity jurisdidion under <br />28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff claims that because the State of Colorado is not a citizen for <br />purposes of diversity jurisdidion, the jurisdidional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 <br />cannot be met Defendants argue 'rf the State of Colorado is joined, complete diversity <br />of citizenship would not be affeded as the State of Colorado would not be considered a <br />citizen of Colorado or any other state. However, there would still be complete diversity <br />of citizenship between Plaintiff (citizen of Delaware/Colorado) and the Barkers (citizens <br />of Washington state), and between Plaintiff and Glen Stinson (citizen of Georgia). <br />Essentially, the parties disagree as to whether you can ever have complete diversity ff a <br />state, which is a non~itizen for diversity purposes, is a party to the adion <br />The burden of establishing subjed matter jurisdidion is on the party asserting <br />jurisdidion, here the Defendants. See Basso v. Ufah Power and Light Co., 495 F.2d <br />906, 909 (10"' Cir.1974). Sedion 1332(a) provides that distrid courts shall have original <br />6 <br />