Laserfiche WebLink
complaint that alleges that because of unspecified reclamation work, the Third-Party <br /> Plaintiffs are entitled to damages from the Division. <br /> Since the reclamation season is a short one and the Division is unwilling to proceed <br /> with completion of bids and reclamation tasks because of the pendency of the allegations <br /> contained in the amended complaint, it is unlikely that the Division can bid out and complete <br /> the reclamation work planned for this year. Delaying these tasks until next year could <br /> increase the cost of reclamation and certainly will delay reclamation of an area which is long <br /> over due. It is for these reasons and for the reason of the potential loss of time, money, and <br /> Division resources that have already been spent on bidding and reclamation work for this <br /> year, that merely granting the parties the opportunity to conduct further discovery and setting <br /> a distant trial date will not cure the prejudice to the Division should this Court grant the <br /> motion. See Polk. supra: Eagle River Mobile Home Park Ltd v District Court in and for <br /> Eagle Coun1y,647 P.2d 660 (Colo. 1982). <br /> Thus, given that the Third-Party Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of <br /> providing a sufficient reason for the tardiness of their motion, that the proposed amended <br /> complaint raises substantially different facts and claims for relief from those raised in the <br /> present complaint; that such amended complaint will require new witnesses, new defenses, <br /> additional discovery, and potentially new parties; that the Division has undertaken the tasks <br /> of writing and issuing bids to conduct reclamation; has in fact conducted partial reclamation; <br /> and that the pending motion casts doubt on future reclamation work, the Motion to Amend <br /> 7 <br />