GENERAL48229 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

separate and distinct claims they should be asserted in separate actions, not through third-party practice. The third-party complaint was filed on or about September 29, 1980, or more than two and one-half months after the filing of the original answer by the defendant Board of County Com- missioners and without obtaining leave of court to do so as re- quired by Colo. R.C.P. 14(a). In its brief in opposition to the motion to strike the third party complaint the Board of Com- missioners for the first time asks leave of court to file the third-party complaint. Such leave should not be granted because the cause of action stated in the third-party complaint is en- tirely separate and distinct from the cause of action alleged in plaintiff's complaint. The logic of the requirement that a third-party complaint be filed within ten days of the original answer is that a defen- dant-third-party plaintiff ought not be allowed to extend its time to initiate a third-party action by simply filing an amended answer, as was done in this case. II. '' The third-party complaint must be dismissed because it has not been filed within the time period specified in C.R.S. 1973, 24-4-106 (Supp. 1979). The third-party complaint seeks judicial review of orders of the Mined Land Reclamation Board issued in 1974, and updated in 1978 and revised in minor part on January 23 or 24, 1980. The third-party complaint attempts an attack upon final agency action, judicial review of which is limited to the method provided in the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act, C.R.S. 1973, 24-4-106(4) (Supp. 1979) which provides in pertinent part: "Any party adversely affected or aggrieved by any agency action may commence an action for judicial review in the district court within thirty days after such agency action becomes effective." (Emphasis added) _S_