Laserfiche WebLink
new claims for relief based on facts outside the present complaint. Third-Party Plaintiffs fail <br /> to provide a sufficient reason for not filing these claims earlier than now. Allowing these <br /> amendments will unduly prejudice the Division. Accordingly, this Court should deny the <br /> Third-Party Plaintiffs' motion. <br /> 2. Third-Party Plaintiffs should not be permitted to amend their complaint at this late <br /> ate. <br /> Although generally amendments to pleadings are to be granted liberally when justice <br /> requires, see Varner v. District Court. 618 P.2d 1388 (Colo. 1980), such leniency is not <br /> without limits. Polk v. Denver District Court, 849 P.2d 23 (Colo. 1993). The movant of a <br /> motion to amend has the burden to establish sufficient reasons for having not stated the <br /> amended claims at an earlier time. Id. Gaubatz v. Marquette Minerals. Inc., (Colo. App. <br /> 1984). In addition, courts are required to consider many factors in determining whether to <br /> grant a motion to amend, including undue delay and prejudice to the opposing party. Polk <br /> supra. Both undue delay and prejudice to an opposing party are grounds to deny a motion to <br /> amend a pleading. Polk. supra: Gaubatz, sup-ra. <br /> In the present case, Third-Party Plaintiffs have not provided a sufficient basis to <br /> establish that justice requires that this Court grant their motion to amend. The Division was <br /> not a party to this action as originally filed. Rather, the Division was added as a party based <br /> on a stipulation between Pitkin County and the Third-Party Plaintiffs on the theory that an <br /> accounting from the Division was necessary in order for the Third-Party Plaintiffs to account <br /> to Pitkin County for unpaid taxes. (paragraph 36 of Third Party Complaint). Third-Party <br /> 2 <br />