Title: Bobrick v. Sanderson
Citation: 432 P.2d 242
Docket Number: 23163
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: October 9, 1967

432 P.2d 242 (1967) Joe BOBRICK, Individually, and Norton Boslow, individually, and both doing business as Jo-AI Shoe Departments, a Colorado partnership, Petitioners, v. Judge Robert SANDERSON, and the District Court In and For the City and County of Denver, Respondents. No. 23163. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. October 9, 1967. Brenman, Ciancio, Rossman &amp; Baum, Martin Zerobnick, Denver, for petitioners. Litvak &amp; Litvak, Denver, for respondents. SUTTON, Justice. Petitioners seek relief in this court from an order of Respondents which denied Petitioners leave to amend their answer to assert a Counterclaim in Case No. B-99664 in the District Court. It is asserted that the trial judge abused his discretion and exceeded his jurisdiction because: On the basis of the original petition we issued a Rule To Show Cause; a response has now been filed and the matter is at issue. Rule 15(a), as quoted, makes liberal provision for the amendment of pleadings. In the instant case a showing was made to the trial court by Petitioners that the filing of the Counterclaim would not delay the trial or cause a postponement thereof and that the other side did not object thereto at that time. In addition, the fact that this is a Compulsory Counterclaim means that if the trial court's order is sustained then no possible future relief can be granted these petitioners and they will be barred from having their claim heard. Such is not the purpose of our rules. Under the facts presented we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Petitioners leave to amend their pleadings. The Rule is made absolute and the cause is remanded with directions to permit the amendment in question. HODGES, J., not participating.