Laserfiche WebLink
adequately carried out reclamation activities in Coal Basin.) These are the same issues that have <br /> been raised by MCR, however, MidCon can offer unique arguments based on the fact that its <br /> property will be diminished in value if DMG runs out of money before reclamation has been <br /> completed. <br /> MidCon's Third Claim for Relief involves real property in Garfield County. While the <br /> property is different than Coal Basin, it is part of the same MCR coal mining operation, is covered <br /> by the same reclamation plan as Coal Basin and is subject to regulation by the same third party <br /> defendant - DMG. If MidCon is not allowed to bring this claim in this action, it can do so in a <br /> separate action brought in Garfield County but, this of course would result in a multiplicity of <br /> lawsuits. As the court stated in O'Hara Group Denver, supra: <br /> The rules of procedure are to be 'liberally construed to secure the just, speedy, and <br /> inexpensive determination in every action.' C.R.C.P. 1(a). It is the better practice to <br /> apply the rule relating to intervention in such a way that, whenever possible and <br /> 'compatible with efficiency and due process,' [citation omitted] issues related to the <br /> same transaction can be resolved in the same lawsuit and at the same trial court <br /> level." 595 P.2d at 687. <br /> For the foregoing reasons, MidCon Realty, LLC, respectfully requests that this Court grant <br /> its Motion to Intervene, deny DMG's objection and grant such further relief as this Court deems just. <br /> 6 <br />