Laserfiche WebLink
litigation but only if it is bound and gagged, unable to speak, argue or assert any claims. DMG seeks <br /> the benefit of MidCon's participation in this litigation so DMG will avoid "the risk of multiple, <br /> potentially inconsistent, demands by the LLC ["MidCon"], MCR [Mid-Continent Resources, Inc.] <br /> and the Trustee regarding reclamation of the mine site" (DMG's objection to Motion to Intervene <br /> and in the Alternative Motion to Strike. F.1, P.6) yet does not want the burden of defending claims <br /> asserted by MidCon. If MidCon is to be a party to this litigation, it should be accorded all the rights <br /> of all the other parties to this litigation (i.e., the ability to assert claims, advance arguments and <br /> defend itself). Therefore, this Court should grant MidCon's Motion to Intervene. <br /> II. ARGUMENT <br /> A. MidCon has Demonstrated that it has a Right to Intervene <br /> Pursuant to C.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). <br /> DMG argues that Rule 24(a)(2) requires that a party moving to intervene show: (1) that its <br /> motion is timely, (2) that it is has a property interest in the litigation and (3) that it will not be <br /> adequately represented. MidCon meets all of these criteria. In addition, courts consider the <br /> prejudice that may be suffered by the party opposing a motion to intervene. Here, DMG has shown <br /> none. <br /> 1. MidCon's Motion was Timely. <br /> On August 13, 1998, Mid-Continent Resources, Inc. filed its Motion to Amend Third Party <br /> Complaint adding claims against DMG arising out of DMG's reclamation activities in Coal Basin. <br /> On September 14, 1998, this Court that motion. Two and one-half months later on November 30, <br /> 1998, MidCon filed its Motion to Intervene. In Brown v. Deerksen, 163 Colo. 194, 429 P.2d 302 <br /> (1967), the Colorado Supreme Court allowed intervention by shareholders approximately two <br />