1998-09-16_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

• Permit No: C1981017
• IBM Index Class Name: GENERAL DOCUMENTS
• Doc Date: 9/16/1998
• Doc Name: Order granting motion to amend
• From: US District Court
• To: Mid-Continent Resources, LLC & DMG
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

(1962) ; H.W. Houston Const. Co. v. District Court, 632 P.2d 563,
565 (Colo. 1981) .
In Polk v. District Court, 849 P.2d 23 (Colo. 1993) , the
Court observed:
In Eagle River Mobile Home Park v. District
Court, 647 P.2d 660, 662 (Colo. 1982) , we
considered the application of Rule 15 (a) ,
including in particular this instructive
phrase, and stated that:
" [t] he rule prescribes a liberal policy of
amendment and encourages the courts to look
favorably on requests to amend. See generally
3 J. Moore, Federal Practice § 15 . 08 [2] (2d
ed. 1980) ; 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure, § 1484 (1971) .
Although leave to amend is not to be granted
automatically, the court should not impose
arbitrary restrictions on the application of
the rule or exercise its discretion in a
manner that undercuts its basic policy.
Pleadings are not sacrosanct, Brown v.
Schumann, 40 Colo. App. 336, 339, 575 P.2d
443, 445 (1978) , and amendments thereto
should be granted in accordance with the
overriding purposes of our rules of civil
procedure 'to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action. "'
As the State notes in this docket, the rule of liberality is not
without its limits.
In Polk the Court said:
In assessing a motion to amend, a trial court
must weigh certain primary considerations,
which we have previously delineated:
"If the underlying facts or circumstances
relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper
subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an
opportunity to test his claim on the merits .
In the absence of any apparent or declared
reason A such as undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant,
repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue
prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
allowance of the amendment, futility of
amendment, etc. A the leave sought should, as
the rules require, be ' freely given. "'
Varner, 618 P.2d at 1390 (quoting Foman,
371 U. S. at 182) ; Eagle River, 647 P.2d at
663 . Thus, the trial court must assess the
motion to amend in light of the totality of
the circumstances . It must balance the
policy favoring the amendments of pleadings
against the burdens which granting the
2