REV100995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

12/14/06 TUE 11:58 FA% 15124,...1711 TDw amend its pleading after a responsive pleading has been filed "... by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party," but that such leave "...shall be freely given when justice so requires." In this case, however, by asking the Couzt's leave to allow the amendment of its complaint solely for the purpose of adding three new defendants, .BTU fimpire really appears to bt asking this Court to allow the joinder of the three additional defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 andlor 20, and to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(x). While 28 U.S.C. § 1367(x) does authorize t'ederal district courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under ceztain circumstances, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) provides that where, as here, diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 forms the sole basis of a fedezal district court's original jurisdiction, that court: ...shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20 or 25 of the Federal Rules of Civit Procedure or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such Hiles, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental Jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent witlt the furisdictional requirements of section 1332. [Emphasis added.) In its memorandum in support of its motion to amend its original complaint, BTU Empire stated: Empire alerts the Court that if the amendment is gcanted to allow the naming of the [State of Colorado acting by and through the Colorado Depaztment of Natural Resources for the use and benefit of the Colorado] Division of Parks [and Outdoor Recreation and the Board of 'The Barkers' answer to Empire's complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed in this Court on September 27, 2004. f~ooa 2