Spring Creek Exploration & Production Company, LLC v. Hess Bakken Invenstment II, LLC et al

Filing 76

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 74 Motion to Intervene as an Additional Plaintiff. Entered by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 04/17/15.(jhawk, )

sIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 14–cv–00134–PAB–KMT
SPRING CREEK EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION COMPANY, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
HESS BAKKEN INVESTMENT II, LLC, F/K/A TRZ ENERGY LLC, and
STATOIL OIL & GAS, LP, F/K/A BRIGHAM OIL & GAS, LP,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
“Gold Coast Energy LLC’s Unopposed Motion to Intervene as an Additional Plaintiff”
(Doc. No. 74, filed Apr. 14, 2015) is DENIED without prejudice. First, Gold Coast’s motion
does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c), which requires that a motion to intervene “be
accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.”
The court rejects Gold Coast’s suggestion that existing plaintiff Spring Creek Exploration &
Production Company, LLC’s complaint also serve as Gold Coast’s complaint—at minimum,
there must be a pleading that specifically identifies Gold Coast as a party to the action.
Second, because Gold Coast will be represented by the same attorneys as Spring Creek
and its claims are identical to those asserted by Spring Creek, the court cannot condone a
modification of the Scheduling Order that extends the current deadlines by more than 90 days.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3) (in considering whether to allow permissive intervention, the court
“must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the
original parties’ rights”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (scheduling order may be modified only for
good cause and with the court’s consent). Indeed, Gold Coast has not explained why it was not
one of the original parties to this action or why it did not seek leave to intervene at an earlier
juncture.
Accordingly, Gold Coast’s Motion to Intervene is DENIED without prejudice with leave
to refile a renewed motion to intervene that (1) attaches a proposed pleading pursuant to Rule
24(c) and (2) seeks no more than a 90-day extension of any current Scheduling Order deadline.
Dated: April 17, 2015