Laserfiche WebLink
12/14/04 TU£ 11:58 FAd 15124;...1711 TDW <br />state district court, then 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) clearly precludes this Court from <br />exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the State of Colorado. <br />Had BTU Empire straightforwardly sought leave of this Court to join <br />Lisa Barker into this case as a defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 or 20, <br />the Barkers would more than likely have agreed to such joinder as Ms. Barker <br />is indeed an owner of an undivided interest in the property that is at the heart <br />of this litigation.' However, the State of Colorado and Glen Stinson have <br />absolutely nothing to do with the declaratory and injunctive causes of action <br />that BTU Empire brought against the Barkers in its original complaint filed in <br />August of 2004 or the relief that BTU Empire sought against the Barkers in <br />that complaint; and BTU Empire's proposed amended complaint does not add <br />causes of action or requested relief against either of them. <br />GIen Stinson has ashort-term hunting ]ease on the Barkers' property <br />that allows him to bring commercial hunting parties onto that property during <br />the limited Colorado deer and e!k bunting season (anticipated to be less than <br />30 days per year); the State of Colorado bas alonger-term lease on a small <br />solely on the basis of diversity jurisdiction automatically destroys diversity <br />under the line of cases on which BTU Empire appears to rely for its <br />"authority." <br />As of this moment, the Barkers' attorneys do not and have never represented <br />Lisa Barker. The January 20, 2004 letter that BTU Empire's counsel refers to <br />in his enemorandum in support of the motion for leave to file amcndod <br />complaint was written by the Barkers' attorneys as a means of rc-opening <br />negotiations between Ray and Brad Barker and BTU Empire's predecessor. <br />The introductory paragraph of that letter was intended only to demonstrate that <br />the then-newly-retained attorneys for Ray and Brad Barker had been retained <br />to negotiate on their behalf with respect to their interests in the property. <br />I~coS <br />