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
{ <br /> 4. DMG will Suffer no Prejudice <br /> In considering whether to grant a motion to intervene, courts will consider the prejudice <br /> suffered by the objecting party. (See Andrikopoulos, supra, where the court stated, "because of the <br /> late tiling, plaintiff had little or no opportunity to investigate the allegations contained in the <br /> motion.") 911 P.2d at 667. Similarly, in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 68 <br /> v. Denver Metropolitan Major League Baseball Stadium District, 880 P.2d 160 (Colo. App. 1994), <br /> the court allowed the motion to intervene only two days before a hearing. The court found in part, <br /> "Thus, considering that the motion was filed only ten days after the issuance of the show cause order, <br /> and that IBEW has shown no resulting prejudice from the trial court's ruling, under the <br /> circumstances, the trial court did not err in allowing Riviera to intervene." 880 P.2d at 164. <br /> In this case, DMG has not even articulated, much less demonstrated, any type of prejudice <br /> that it will stiffer should MidCon be allowed to intervene in this case at this point. As previously <br /> stated, no trial date has been set, discovery has not commenced on the Amended Third Complaint <br /> and although a Case Management Order has been signed, the Court has ordered that a revised Case <br /> Management Order be filed in January, 1999. (Order dated December 4, 1998) <br /> B. The Second and Third Claims in MidCon's Proposed <br /> Third Party Complaint are Appropriate for this Litigation <br /> The Second Claim for Relief in MidCon's proposed Third Party Complaint is for breach of <br /> contract against DMG for failing to adequately fulfill the reclamation plan resulting in a diminished <br /> value of MidCon's real estate in Coal Basin. In its objection, DMG argues that this claim amounts <br /> to interjecting new issues into this lawsuit. On the contrary, this is the same type of activity that <br /> MCR has complained about in its Amended Third Party Complaint (i.e., whether DMG has <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.