My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1998-09-16_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1998-09-16_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 6:51:59 PM
Creation date
5/2/2012 2:23:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
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
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.
/
3
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
amendment may impose on the other parties . <br /> See Gaubatz v. Marquette Minerals, Inc. , 688 <br /> P.2d 1128, 1130 (Colo. App. 1984) . <br /> Here, the balance of the totality of circumstances favors the <br /> granting of the motion to amend. Notice of the intent to amend the <br /> Complaint was given on August 3, 1998 . The Court has been required <br /> to continue a previously set trial date, but for reasons <br /> unconnected with amending the Complaint. The request to vacate the <br /> trial date preceded the request to amend the third-party complaint. <br /> A Case Management Order is not in place. When the trial date of <br /> August 7, 1998 was vacated, the State urged the Court to do so, as <br /> part of Joint Motion to Vacate the August 7, 1998 trial setting. A <br /> necessary concomitant of vacating that trial date was the delay to <br /> a new trial date. Thus, the State cannot now argue prejudice from <br /> the delay of amending the Complaint. <br /> The request to amend comes on the heels of a change in counsel <br /> for the Movants, and there is no basis on which to conclude the <br /> presence of bad faith or a request to delay. <br /> At this time, a trial date has not been set. No party will be <br /> prejudiced from the time allotted to amending the third-party <br /> complaint, other than the expiration of time in and of itself. <br /> Therefore, the Court concludes that good cause exists to grant <br /> the Motion to Amend Third-Party Complaint, and therefore the Motion <br /> is granted. The Amended Third-party Complaint shall be served <br /> within seven days of this Order, and a Response or Answer shall be <br /> due under the Rules. <br /> As noted in the Order of August 20, 1998, the Division' s <br /> attorney shall set a status conference to be held by October 30, <br /> 1998 . A proposed Case Management Order shall be submitted at or <br /> before the status conference. If the parties have not stipulated <br /> to a Case Management Order by the time of the status conference, <br /> any matter to which counsel do not agree shall be designated as <br /> "disputed" in the proposed Case Manaq2Mgnt Order, .C.P. 16 (b) . <br /> DISTRICT JUDGE <br /> CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE <br /> I certify that a copy of the foregoing was duly transmitted to <br /> Geoffrey P. Anderson, Deborah Quinn, and Cheryl Linden on September <br /> 14, 1998 . <br /> REPORTER <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.