_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 ‎(181)‎

• Permit No: C1981017
• IBM Index Class Name: GENERAL DOCUMENTS
• Doc Name: Bid Documents ‎(IMP)‎ Court Appeals
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

_`1VEC,
DISTRICT COURT, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Case No. 93 CV 201 Z 1,99
----------------------------------------------- ---------
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
STATE OF COLORADO
Plaintiff,
V.
JOHN A. REEVES; ROBERT DELANEY; DIANE DELANEY; AND
MID-CONTINENT MINERALS CORPORATION,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff responds as follows to the Defendants' Motion
to Amend Answer:
The defendants seek to amend their answer to the complaint
by adding the defenses of failure to mitigate damages and unclean
hands. They base their motion on the allegation that the plain-
tiff opposes Mid-Continent Resources, Inc. 's (MCR) liquidation
plan. MCR is the corporation with which the defendants are asso-
ciated. MCR filed a petition in bankruptcy in 1992 , and is cur-
rently seeking confirmation of its proposed liquidation plan.
The defendants allege that if the proposed liquidation plan
submitted by MCR is confirmed, (the confirmation hearing is April
11, 1994) , then there is no need for the relief requested in the
complaint in this case. The plaintiff takes issue with the de-
fendants' allegations and objects to the defendants' Motion to
Amend Answer.
The defense of failure to mitigate damages applies when a
plaintiff has failed to take reasonable care and diligence to
minimize or lessen resulting damages. Burt v. Beautiful Savior
Lutheran Church of Broomfield, 809 P. 2d 1064 (Colo. App. 1990) ;
Martin v. Porak, 638 P. 2d 853 (Colo. App. 1981) . However, an
injured party is not required to take unreasonable measures or