My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1998-12-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1998-12-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2021 8:43:47 PM
Creation date
5/2/2012 2:23:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
12/30/1998
Doc Name
Reply in support of motion to intervene
From
US District Court
To
Mid-Continent Resources, Inc. & DMG
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
months after a default judgment had been entered. In contrast, the cases cited by DMG involved <br /> long delays and attempts to intervene when the litigation was in an advanced stage. For example, <br /> in Law Offices of Andrew L. Ouiat v. Ellithorpe, 917 P.2d 300 (Colo. App. 1995), the court of <br /> appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to allow the law firm to <br /> intervene because of the firm's knowledge years earlier that it may have a claim. Further, the law <br /> firm did not file its motion to intervene until approximately sixty days after judgment had been <br /> entered. Likewise, in Andrikopoulos v. Minnelusa Co., 911 P.2d 663 (Colo. App. 1995), the court <br /> of appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to intervene filed only four days before trial. <br /> In contrast, this case has not even been set for trial. Further, discovery on the issues raised <br /> in MCR's Amended Third Party Complaint has not even begun because of questions regarding the <br /> standing of Pitkin County to be involved in those claims. See this Court's Order dated December <br /> 4, 1998. <br /> 2. MidCon has Shown a Property Interest <br /> MidCon is the owner of the private property in Coal Basin that is the subject of this litigation. <br /> Further, MidCon is the owner of the real property in Garfield County known as the Coal Load Out <br /> that is the subject of MidCon's Third Claim for Relief in its proposed Third Party Complaint. DMG <br /> does not seriously take issue with the fact that MidCon has a property interest here and therefore, <br /> this prong of the Rule 24(a)(2) test is met. <br /> 3. MidCon is not Adequately Represented <br /> DMG argues that because both MidCon and MCR are requesting an injunction to prevent <br /> the destruction of the Lamp House and other improvements in Coal Basin and because both MidCon <br /> and MCR are represented by the same attorney, MidCon must be adequately represented. However, <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.