Laserfiche WebLink
CREUIVE 0 <br /> SEP 10 1%8 <br /> DISTRICT COURT,COUNTY OF PITKIN, STAVE OF COLORADO <br /> Case No. 97-CV-131-3 v.. ;_T- 0U-_,C;S S=77011V <br /> THIRD-PARTY,PLAINTIFFS'REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND <br /> THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT <br /> BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITIC,IN COUNTY, COLORADO,AND <br /> T140MAS CARL OKEN, PITKIN COUNTY TREASURER, <br /> Plaintiffs, <br /> v. <br /> MID-CONTINENT RESOURCES, INC., and LOUIS M.LAGIGLIA, <br /> CREDITORS'TRUSTEE UNDER BANKRUPTCY PLAN OF LIQUIDATION, <br /> Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, <br /> v, <br /> STATE OF COLORADO, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION <br /> OF MMR.ALS AND GEOLOGY, <br /> Third-Party Defendant <br /> Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs,Mid-Continent Resources,Inc.and Louis M.LaGiglia <br /> Creditors' Trustee under Bankruptcy Plan of Liquidation (collectively "Defendants"), by their <br /> attorneys Burns,Figa&Will,P.C.,hereby reply to Third-Party Defendant,Division of Minerals and <br /> Geology's("DMG")Objection to Motion to Amend Third-Party Complaint. <br /> DMG objects to Defendants' Motion to Amend the Third-Party Complaint based on (1) <br /> Defendants'alleged untimeliness in bringing the amended claims and(2) prejudice that DMG will <br /> allegedly suffer. DMG's arguments are unpersuasive because the amended claims are not untimely <br /> under the circumstances here and any prejudice suffered by DMG will arise only from having the <br /> case decided on the merits which is insufficient to prohibit amending the Third-Party Complaint. <br /> 1. The Amended Claims Are Not Untimely <br /> In its Objection to Motion to Amend Third-Party Complaint ("DMG's Objection"), DMG <br /> points out that the Third-Party Complaint was filed in July, 1997. In January 1998,DMG provided <br /> to Defendants an "accounting" (which Defendants allege is of inadequate detail). Interrogatory <br /> Z.0"d 70:ST 86, St daS 8SS£998£0E:xpd <br />