Laserfiche WebLink
_~ <br />;~ <br />. ._~ - nri)k T <br />IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT'- - <br />FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO l,; , ~, ~_ ~ ` 4 F'1 i It ~ J y <br />.~....... I ,1i~GFiA11 <br />Civi] Action No. 04-MK-1992 (CBS) •~- ' <br />BTU Empire Corporation, _~.____ __-..vo:~. ctK <br />Plaintiff, <br />vs. <br />Ray Bazker and Brad Bazker, <br />Defendants. <br />REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED <br />COMPLAINT <br />Plaintiff BTU Empire Corporation ("Empire"), through counsel, hereby files its <br />Reply to the Response to Motion to File Amended Complaint (the "Response") filed by <br />defendants Ray Barker and Brad Bazker (the "Barkers"). <br />I. Empire's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint was Properly Made <br />Under Fed R Civ. P. ]5(a). <br />Empire's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint {Empire's "Motion") was <br />made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Bazkers' Response mistakenly asserts that Empire's <br />Motion was made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, and then attempts to explain why relief <br />should not be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. However, a simple review of Empire's <br />Motion and Empire's proposed Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive <br />Relief (the "Amended Complaint") shows that Empire is seeking not just to add <br />additional parties but also to amend the Complaint to specifically plead against those <br />parries. <br />