Laserfiche WebLink
12/14/04 TOE 11:57 FAb 15124:.7711 TDW <br />amount of the Barkers' property bordering the Yampa River to be used by <br />members of the public in connection with raging on the River. Neither of <br />these leasehold interests would be affected in any way by a determination of <br />this Court that BTU Empire has or does not have a contractual, statutory or <br />implied right of access onto the Barkers' property for the limited purpose of <br />performing reclamation work on the property. Neither the State of Colorado <br />nor Glen Stinson is required "for a full adjudication of this matter..." as BTU <br />Empire's counsel alleged in the memorandum in support of the motion for <br />leave to filc amended complaint. Instead, the State of Colorado and Glen <br />Stinson have absolutely no relationship to the two causes of action that BTU <br />Empire has alleged against the Barkers or the relief that BTU Empire is <br />seeking against the Barkers. <br />As noted earlier, BTU Empire appears to be seeking to join Lisa Barker <br />as a defendant in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 or 20 rather than to <br />amend the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. F. 15(a). ):,ikewise, BTU Empire <br />appears to be seeking to join the State of Colorado and Glen Stinson as <br />defendants in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P, l9 or 20 rather than to <br />amend the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 75(a). However, BTU <br />Empire's motion for leave to file amended complaint and the supporting <br />temorandum do not address the standards far joinder of Lisa 'Barker, the State <br />of Colorado and/or Glcnn Stinson under either Rule 19 or 20. Thus, in this <br />Response the $arkers are not articulating their objections to joinder of Lisa <br />Barker, the State of Colorado and/or Glenn Stinson pursuant to the specific <br />moos <br />5 <br />