Laserfiche WebLink
does not eliminate the need for the relief sought here. <br /> Although the defendants state that the principal basis for <br /> their motion was the plaintiff's alleged opposition to the <br /> liquidation plan, the defendants also "reserve the right to as- <br /> sert any other actions by the plaintiff which also support these <br /> defenses, including, without limitation, interference by plain- <br /> tiff with the proposed sale by Resources of individual assets <br /> from time to time. " This statement is insufficient to establish <br /> a ground on which to allow a party to amend its pleading. The <br /> defendants are required to assert specific facts to support their <br /> motion. Otherwise, the court has no way of determining whether <br /> it is appropriate to grant or deny such a motion. <br /> Assuming arguendo that such an assertion is sufficient to <br /> move to amend a pleading, if the defendants are referring to any <br /> proposed sale of the assets in MCR's bankruptcy estate, the <br /> reasoning set forth above undermines the defenses the defendants <br /> want to add to their answer. The plaintiff as a creditor of MCR <br /> has the right and duty to object to any sale if that sale is not <br /> in the best interests of the plaintiff. Objecting to a sale of <br /> the assets can hardly constitute "interference" by the plaintiff <br /> which would form some sort of basis to assert the defenses of <br /> failure to mitigate damages and unclean hands. Such an action <br /> would not be unconscionable or unreasonable under the circum- <br /> stances. Thus, there is no basis upon which to grant the defen- <br /> dants' motion. <br /> WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests that this Court deny the <br /> defendants' Motion to Amend Answer. <br /> GALE A. NORTON <br /> Attorney General <br /> STEPHEN K. ERKENBRACK <br /> Chief Deputy Attorney General <br /> TIMOTHY M. TYMKOVICH <br /> Solicitor General <br /> PATRICIA S. BANGERT <br /> Deputy Attorney General <br /> -3- <br />