Laserfiche WebLink
Empue's Motion seeks leave to amend Empire's Complaint. Empire's Amended <br />Complaint would add as defendants Lisa Bazker, Glen Stinson, and the State of Colorado, <br />Department of Natural Resources, Division of Pazks and Outdoor Recreation and Boazd <br />of Pazks and Outdoor Recreation (the "State"). <br />The status of Lisa Bazker exemplifies why Empire's Motion is brought under Fed. <br />R. Civ. P. 15(a) rather than Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. Upon the filing of Barkers' Answer <br />herein, Empire became aware that Ray and Brad Bazker were not the only owners of <br />undivided interests in the property that is the subject of this action (the "Property"). After <br />learning this fact from Barker's Answer, Empire discovered that Ms. Bazker also owns an <br />undivided interest in the Property and thus is similarly situated with Ray and Brad <br />Bazker, both of whom own undivided interests in the Property. If Ms. Bazker were the <br />only additional person identified by Empire as having an interest in the property, Empire <br />would have simply moved to join her as an additional defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 <br />because all of the allegations against Ray and Brad Bazker as owners of an undivided <br />interests in the Property would have been directly applicable to Ms. Bazker. The addition <br />of Ms. Barker as a defendant would thus not have required amending the Complaint <br />under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); rather, she could simply have been joined under Fed. R. Civ. <br />P. 19 because she is subject to service of process and her joinder would not deprive this , <br />Court of jurisdiction. <br />The situation is different with respect to Mr. Stinson and the State. Upon the <br />filing of Bazkers' Answer herein, Empire learned that these parties have an interest in the <br />Property, but that their interest is not a undivided ownership interest such as that held by <br />Ray, Brad and Lisa Barker, but is rather a leasehold interest in the Property. Because <br />