Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COURT
USE
ONLY
Case
Number:
Division
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
VISAJ
Unity,
LLC
d/b/a
Metro
Cannabis
(VISAJ),
by
and
through
its
attorneys,
Hoban
&
Feola,
LLC,
respectfully
submits
its
Complaint,
stating
as
follows:
I.
PARTIES,
JURISDICTION
AND
VENUE
1. Plaintiff
VISAJ
is
a
Colorado
Limited
Liability
Company
with
a
business
address
of
18881
E.
Colfax
Ave.,
Aurora,
CO
80111.
2. Defendant
City
of
Aurora
(Aurora)
is
a
Colorado
municipality
with
its
principal
administrative
offices
at
15151
E.
Alameda
Parkway,
Aurora,
CO
80012.
3. Defendant
Aurora
Marijuana
Enforcement
Division
(AMED)
is
a
division
of
the
1
Aurora
Finance
Department
charged
with
enforcing
Auroras
Retail
Marijuana
Code
(the
Code)
and
AMEDs
own
regulations.
4. Defendant
Jason
Batchelor
is
the
Director
of
the
Aurora
Finance
Department.
Mr.
Batchelor
also
acted
as
the
hearing
officer
at
the
October
13,
2014
hearing
that
gave
rise,
in
large
part,
to
this
Complaint.
Mr.
Batchelor
is
named
as
a
defendant
in
his
official
capacity.
5. Venue
is
proper
in
this
Court
pursuant
to
C.R.C.P.
98(c)
because
VISAJs
principal
place
of
business
is
in
Adams
County
and
Aurora
is
partially
located
in
Adams
County.
II.
GENERAL
ALLEGATIONS
6. On
May
12,
2014
the
Aurora
City
Council
approved
Auroras
Retail
Marijuana
Establishments
Ordinance
(Ordinance),
which
went
into
effect
on
June
14,
2014.
The
Ordinance
provided
for
issuance
of
up
to
four
retail
marijuana
store
licenses
in
each
of
Auroras
six
city
council
wards,
for
a
total
of
twenty-four
retail
marijuana
store
licenses
throughout
Aurora.
7. The
Ordinance
and
Code
established
a
points
system
to
grade
applications
for
licensure,
with
each
applicant
awarded
between
0
and
41
points,
and
the
top
four
applicants
in
each
city
council
ward
awarded
a
conditional
license.
8. AMED
created
an
extensive
application
packet
requesting
a
broad
range
of
information
from
applicants.
The
application
packet
included
an
Application
Checklist
detailing
the
criteria
under
which
AMED
would
award
points,
and
apportioning
specific
point
values
to
specific
criteria
and
topics
pursuant
to
Code
6-309.
9. Applicants
could
earn
up
to
ten
possible
points
for
their
Business
Plan
and
up
to
ten
points
for
their
Operating
Plan.
AMED
represented
to
applicants
that
it
would
contract
with
three
independent
reviewers
possessing
specialized
expertise
to
evaluate
the
Business
and
Operating
plans.
10. Although
Aurora
and
AMED
represented
to
applicants
and
members
of
the
public
that
licenses
would
be
awarded
based
on
an
unbiased
and
comprehensive
evaluation
system,
the
process
was
in
fact
conducted
according
to
a
set
of
unwritten
rules
that
appear
to
have
been
made
up
and
changed
at
the
whim
of
AMED
officials.
The
result
was
that
AMED
failed
to
implement
an
objective
and
transparent
process
to
award
licenses
to
the
most
qualified
applicants.
11. Upon
information
and
belief,
AMED
instead
manipulated
the
process
to
pick
2
winners
and
losers
based
on
secret
criteria
that
included
seeking
a
certain
geographic
distribution
of
marijuana
stores
and
favoring
certain
applicants
that
AMED
officials
liked
more
than
others.
12. On
or
about
June
9,
2014,
VISAJ
submitted
a
letter
of
intent
to
apply
for
a
retail
marijuana
store
license
(license)1
to
AMED
in
compliance
with
AMED
Regulation
202.3(b).
And
VISAJ
requested
a
pre-application
meeting
with
AMED
on
or
about
June
25,
2014.
13. Members
of
VISAJs
ownership
group
and
design
team
met
with
AMED
officials
during
an
informal
meeting
on
or
about
June
23,
2014
to
discuss
the
application
process,
and
also
met
with
AMED
officials
and
other
Aurora
officials
on
July
14,
2014
at
the
preapplication
meeting
required
by
AMED
Regulation
202.3(b).
14. Aurora
officials
mentioned
more
than
once
during
these
meetings
that
Auroras
ventilation
and
odor
mitigation
requirements
for
marijuana
stores
were
modeled
on
requirements
that
the
City
of
Boulder
had
implemented
in
order
to
prevent
the
odor
of
marijuana
from
being
detectable
outside
of
the
licensed
premises.
15. Aurora
officials
also
stated
that
engineering
drawings
or
details
of
the
filtration
plans
were
not
required
at
the
application
stage,
but
instead
such
details
would
need
to
be
submitted
to
the
Building
Department
once
the
license
was
approved.
This
was
consistent
with
Auroras
written
pre-licensing
overview
package,
which
stated
that
Aurora
would
require
[i]nstallation
of
an
air
scrubber
or
carbon
filter
air
filtration
systems
or
equivalent
but
did
not
require
any
specific
equipment.
(emphasis
supplied).
16. VISAJ
timely
submitted
its
license
application
on
July
31,
2014.
VISAJs
entire
application
packet
was
over
400
pages
long
including
attachments
and
met
the
submittal
requirements
of
Regulation
202.4.
17. AMED
informed
VISAJ
that
its
application
packet
was
complete.
AMED
subsequently
requested
additional
tax
information
from
VISAJ,
but
did
not
request
any
other
supplemental
information.
18. On
August
28,
2014
Aurora
announced
that
it
had
awarded
21
total
licenses
for
retail
marijuana
stores.
VISAJ
did
not
receive
a
license,
and
members
of
its
ownership
group
requested
a
meeting
with
AMED
to
discuss
why
AMED
denied
VISAJs
application.
1
Aurora
issued
different
classes
of
licenses
for
retail
marijuana
stores,
cultivation
facilities,
infused
product
manufacturers
and
testing
facilities.
The
case
at
bar
concerns
the
procedure
for
issuance
of
marijuana
store
licenses
only.
3
19. VISAJs
counsel,
Robert
T.
Hoban,
Esq.
and
VISAJ
owners
Stanislav
Zislis,
Igor
Kaminer
and
Vice
President
of
Finance
Aleksander
Murakhovskiy
met
with
AMED
members
Kim
Kreimeyer
and
Wade
Jensen
on
September
10,
2014
to
discuss
AMEDs
process
for
evaluating
license
applications.
20. VISAJ
applied
for
a
license
in
City
Council
Ward
2
because
its
leased
premises
at
18881
E.
Colfax
Ave.
were
located
within
that
ward.
VISAJ
was
awarded
34
total
points
by
Auroras
evaluators.
The
next
highest
scoring
applicant
in
Ward
2
was
Mountain
States
Group
I
LLC
(MSG),
who
received
a
score
of
35.
21. At
the
September
10,
2014
meeting
VISAJ
also
learned
that
it
would
have
tied
for
the
highest
score
of
all
applicants
in
Ward
2
had
it
been
awarded
three
points
for
its
response
to
Item
#
17,
which
asked
what
steps
the
applicant
would
take
to
prevent
the
odor
of
marijuana
from
being
detected
outside
of
the
licensed
premises.
22. But
VISAJ
received
zero
points
for
its
response
to
Item
#
17
despite
the
fact
that
it
provided
a
far
more
detailed
response
to
the
question
than
most
applicants
who
were
awarded
the
full
three
points.
23. At
the
September
10,
2014
meeting
VISAJs
attorney
asked
Mr.
Jensen
and
Ms.
Kreimeyer
if
VISAJ
could
appeal
denial
of
its
application
and
Ms.
Kreimeyer
denied
than
an
appeal
process
existed.
24. Following
the
meeting
with
Ms.
Kreimeyer
and
Mr.
Jensen
from
AMED,
VISAJ
requested
copies
of
winning
applicants
applications
and
its
own
application
on
September
10,
2014
pursuant
to
the
Colorado
Open
Records
Act
(CORA)
in
order
to
attempt
to
understand
why
its
application
was
denied.
25. On
September
16,
2014
VISAJ
timely
appealed
denial
of
its
license
application
pursuant
to
AMED
regulations
203.3
and
802.
26. On
or
about
October
1,
2014
AMED
produced
approximately
3,000
pages
of
documents
in
response
to
VISAJs
September
10,
2014
document
request.
27. VISAJ
went
to
hearing
on
October
13,
2014.
Mr.
Batchelor
acted
as
the
hearing
officer.
28. AMED
should
have
appointed
a
truly
neutral
hearing
officer,
as
opposed
to
Mr.
Batchelor.
A
high
level
of
public
interest
and
media
coverage
accompanied
Auroras
implementation
of
its
marijuana
licensure
system.
As
the
Finance
Director,
Mr.
Batchelor
had
a
vested
interest
in
issuing
a
decision
that
minimized
any
mistakes
or
irregularities
in
the
licensure
process
implemented
by
his
subordinate
department,
4
AMED.
Thus,
Defendants
stacked
the
deck
against
VISAJ
from
the
outset
of
the
appeal
process.
29. On
October
13,
2014
VISAJ
submitted
another
CORA
request
to
AMED
following
the
licensure
hearing.
VISAJ
requested
copies
of
documentation
pertaining
to
all
financial
transactions
between
AMED
and
the
independent
reviewers.
30. VISAJs
presentation
of
evidence
and
argument
at
the
October
13,
2014
hearing,
and
in
its
post-hearing
Brief,
demonstrated
that
AMED
committed
serious
errors
in
the
licensure
process.
VISAJ
now
brings
this
lawsuit
because
AMED
has
refused
to
correct
these
errors
or
to
reverse
its
denial
of
VISAJs
application
a.
31. AMED
committed
an
obvious
math
error
in
calculating
competing
applicant
MSGs
score.
MSG
obtained
an
average
score
of
7.44
points
from
the
three
independent
reviewers
rating
its
Operating
Plan.
But
rather
than
rounding
the
score
down
to
7,
AMED
rounded
the
score
up
to
8
points.
Applying
the
correct
rounding
rule
results
in
MSG
obtaining
a
total
score
of
34,
which
in
turn
results
in
a
tie
for
fourth
place
between
MSG
and
VISAJ.
32. In
other
instances
Aurora
employed
the
proper
mathematical
rule
of
rounding
scores
below
.5
points
downward.
For
instance,
in
Ward
1,
applicant
Blue
Dot
Botanicals
received
an
average
score
of
7.44
points
on
its
operating
plan.
In
that
instance,
Aurora
correctly
rounded
Blue
Dots
score
down
to
7
points.
33. Code
6-309(c)
directed
AMED
to
select
a
winner
at
random
in
the
event
that
two
or
more
applicants
tied
for
licensure
in
a
given
ward.
AMED
had
previously
stated
that
the
tiebreaker
process
would
involve
a
public
lottery
system.
34. In
his
written
denial
of
VISAJs
appeal
Mr.
Batchelor
wrote:
I
find
that
the
score
of
[MSG]
was
incorrectly
rounded
up,
however,
at
best
this
would
have
entitled
VISAJ
to
a
drawing
for
the
final
license.
The
license
has
already
been
awarded
to
[MSG].
There
is
no
lawful
basis
to
revoke
[MSGs]
license.
(emphasis
supplied).
35. AMEDs
refusal
to
implement
the
tiebreaker
process
that
Code
6-309(c)
mandates
in
order
to
correct
its
own
obvious
math
erroror
to
simply
award
an
additional
license
to
VISAJ--rendered
the
appellate
process
set
forth
in
AMED
Regulation
803
meaningless,
and
provides
additional
evidence
of
AMEDs
intent
to
improperly
award
licenses
to
its
preferred
applicants.
36. Mathematical
analysis
of
AMEDs
scoring
of
all
applications
reveals
that
it
is
highly
unlikely
that
there
would
not
have
been
any
tie
for
licensure
in
any
ward.
Upon
5
37. As
noted
above,
applicants
Business
and
Operating
Plans
were
scored
by
three
reviewers.
AMED
repeatedly
represented
to
applicants
and
the
general
public
that
each
of
the
three
reviewers
would
be
independent
of
AMED
and
possess
specialized
skill,
training
and
experience
in
evaluating
the
applicants
Business
and
Operating
plans.
38. AMED
has
refused
to
disclose
the
reviewers
identities
despite
VISAJs
repeated
requests
that
it
do
so.
39. Analysis
of
the
scores
that
the
three
reviewers
awarded
to
all
applicants
shows
that
Reviewer
#1
and
Reviewer
#2
issued
very
similar
scores
to
each
applicant.
40. In
contrast,
Reviewer
#3s
scores
depart
radically
from
the
other
two
reviewers.
41. If
Reviewer
#3s
scores
are
excluded,
VISAJ
would
be
placed
in
a
three-way
tie
for
the
fourth
license
in
Ward
2,
even
without
VISAJ
receiving
an
additional
three
points
for
Item
#17.
42. In
response
to
VISAJs
CORA
request,
AMED
provided
scoring
notes
for
Reviewers
#1
and
#2
commenting
on
VISAJs
Operating
Plan
and
Business
Plan.
43. AMED
officials
first
stated
that
AMED
could
not
provide
Reviewer
#3s
notes
along
with
the
other
reviewers
notes
because
Reviewer
#3
made
notes
directly
on
a
hard
copy
of
VISAJs
Business
Plan
and
Operating
Plan.
44. But
at
the
October
13,
2014
hearing,
AMED
Manager
Ms.
Peterson
changed
AMEDs
position
and
testified
that
AMED
could
not
provide
notes
for
Reviewer
#3
because
Reviewer
#3
did
not
make
any
written
notes
or
comments
of
any
kind.
Ms.
Peterson
again
refused
to
disclose
Reviewer
#3s
identity.
45. In
its
October
13,
2014
CORA
request
VISAJ
requested
records
of
all
payments
to
the
three
reviewers.
Aurora
produced
documents
showing
that
it
paid
$16,500.00
to
Reviewer
#1
and
$16,500.00
to
Reviewer
#2.
Aurora
did
not
produce
any
documents
showing
any
payments
to
Reviewer
#3.
Aurora
also
produced
contracts
with
Reviewer
#
1
and
Reviewer
#2,
which
specifically
required
the
reviewers
to
submit
narratives
explaining
their
rationale
in
grading
the
Business
and
Operating
Plans.
Aurora
produced
no
contract
with
Reviewer
#3.
6
46. The
terms
of
the
reviewer
contracts
that
Aurora
produced
contradicted
Ms.
Peterson
and
Mr.
Batchelors
later
statements
that
the
reviewers
were
not
required
to
retain
any
written
notes.
47. Additionally,
Mr.
Batchelor
wrote
in
his
decision
denying
the
appeal
that
at
the
October
13,
2014
hearing,
[t]here
was
no
testimony
about
the
instructions
given
to
reviewers
or
whether
they
were
required
to
write
explanatory
notes.
48. Mr.
Batchelors
finding
contradicted
Ms.
Petersons
hearing
testimony
that
Reviewer
#3
took
no
notes.
And
Ms.
Petersons
testimony
in
turn
contradicted
the
terms
of
Auroras
contracts
with
Reviewers
#
1
and
2,
as
well
as
Mr.
Jensen
and
Ms.
Kreimeyers
September
10,
2014
statements
that
Reviewer
#3
took
notes
directly
on
VISAJs
Business
Plan
and
Operating
Plan.
49. These
statements,
combined
with
Auroras
delays
in
providing
requested
documents,
evidence
a
concerted
effort
by
Aurora
to
deny
VISAJ
genuine
insight
into
Auroras
decision-making
process.
If
Aurora
had
implemented
an
objective
and
consistent
evaluation
process
for
licenses
it
would
not
have
needed
to
go
to
such
great
lengths
to
attempt
to
prevent
VISAJ
from
gathering
relevant
facts
and
documents
in
support
if
its
appeal.
50. Upon
information
and
belief,
Aurora
did
not
pay
Reviewer
#3
because
the
individual
who
entered
scores
under
the
guise
of
Reviewer
#3
was
not
actually
an
independent
reviewer.
Rather,
this
individual,
or
group
of
individuals,
improperly
manipulated
scores
in
order
to
favor
certain
applicants
over
others,
to
ensure
a
preferred
geographic
distribution
of
licensed
marijuana
stores
and
to
avoid
having
to
hold
a
public
lottery.
c.
VISAJ
Should
Have
Received
Three
Points
for
its
Response
to
Item
#17
51. As
noted
above,
AMED
awarded
either
three
points
or
zero
points
for
an
applicants
response
to
Item
#17,
which
stated:
odors
be
detectable
outside
of
the
licensed
premises.
Because
AMED
officials
had
repeatedly
stated
that
the
Aurora
regulation
was
modeled
after
Boulders
regulation,
VISAJ
explained
that
its
ownership
group
operated
a
store
in
Boulder
and
would
use
the
same
design-build
team
that
designed
and
installed
the
HVAC
system
at
its
Boulder
premises.
53. Moreover,
members
of
VISAJs
design-build
team--including
Roger
Blank,
P.E.,
general
contractor
Bryan
Williams
and
architect
Glen
Palmer--attended
the
July
14,
2014
pre-application
meeting
to
ensure
compliance
with
Item
#
17,
among
other
things.
AMED
officials
told
these
professionals
that
plans
or
a
detailed
description
of
the
proposed
air
filtration
system
were
unnecessary
at
the
application
stage
and
that
these
details
should
be
submitted
to
the
Building
Department
following
conditional
licensure.
54. Auroras
Application
Checklist
noted
that
up
to
three
points
could
be
awarded
if
[p]rior
to
opening,
the
building
contains
air
filtration
systems
that
filter
out
marijuana
odor
pursuant
to
Code
6-309(b)(6).
55. VISAJ
made
it
clear
that
it
would
be
able
to
meet
this
requirement
by
noting
that
it
would
be
using
the
same
design-build
team
that
had
installed
ventilation
systems
that
meet
Auroras
standards
at
various
other
marijuana
businesses
managed
by
VISAJs
ownership
group.
56. In
addition
to
requiring
a
written
Business
Plan
and
a
written
Operating
Plan,
Aurora
also
permitted
applicants
to
submit
a
written
Security
Plan.
VISAJ
was
one
of
only
eighteen
out
of
55
applicants
that
received
the
full
two
points
for
its
narrative
Security
Plan.
57. In
contrast,
VISAJ
was
one
of
only
seven
out
of
55
total
applicants
that
received
zero
points
for
its
response
to
Item
#
17.
58. It
made
no
sense
for
Aurora
to
award
more
points
for
respondents
who
used
certain
catchphrases
in
response
to
Item
#
17
than
it
awarded
to
applicants
who
provided
a
detailed
narrative
Security
Plan.
59. Steve
Clark,
building
inspection
supervisor
and
AMED
member,
testified
at
the
October
13,
2014
hearing
that
he
had
sole
responsibility
for
awarding
points
in
response
to
Item
#
17,
and
that
he
awarded
the
points
on
an
all
or
nothing
basis.
60. Mr.
Clark
stated
he
had
inspected
marijuana
facilities
in
Boulder
and
that
he
and
other
AMED
members
were
familiar
with
Boulders
requirement
and
modeled
Regulation
503.2
after
Boulders
regulation.
But
he
also
testified
that
it
was
insufficient
for
VISAJ
to
state
that
it
was
currently
operating
facilities
that
meet
8
Boulders
regulation
and
would
use
the
same
design-build
team
that
VISAJ
used
for
its
Boulder
facility
in
order
to
receive
three
points
for
Item
#17.
61. Mr.
Clark
testified
that
he
is
not
an
HVAC
expert
and
that
he
essentially
received
no
guidance
from
AMED
on
how
to
score
Item
#17.
Rather,
Mr.
Clark
unilaterally
decided
to
award
points
only
to
applicants
who
used
some
combination
of
the
catchphrases
carbon
filter,
air
scrubber,
or
negative
pressure.
62. Mr.
Clark
initially
testified
that
he
would
not
consider
portions
of
the
application
outside
of
Item
#17
to
award
points,
but
then
admitted
that
he
awarded
points
to
another
applicant
based
on
a
ventilation
plan
that
the
applicant
submitted
as
an
attachment
to
the
application.
He
also
testified
that
no
standards
existed
to
guide
his
decision.
63. VISAJs
attorney
noted
that
both
Reviewer
#1
and
Reviewer
#2
provided
very
favorable
written
comments
in
response
to
VISAJs
statements
regarding
odor
mitigation
in
its
Operating
Plan.
Mr.
Clark
responded
that
he
did
not
review
the
applicants
Operating
or
Business
plans.
64. Aurora
abused
its
discretion
by
failing
to
provide
Mr.
Clark
with
any
criteria
for
scoring
Item
#
17.
And
Mr.
Clark
abused
his
discretion
by
ignoring
the
fact
that
he
should
have
awarded
three
points
to
VISAJ
for
describing
a
system
that
would
employ
the
equivalent
of
some
combination
of
carbon
filters,
air
scrubbers
and
negative
pressure.
65. Significantly,
Mr.
Clark
later
expressed
his
view
that
theres
a
lot
of
people
out
there
that
wereare
more
qualified
than
your
client.
Thatsthat
is
definitely
the
case.
If
Mr.
Clark
correctly
testified
that
he
did
not
review
other
portions
of
the
applicants
applications
he
would
have
had
no
way
of
knowing
which
applicants
were
the
most
qualified.
66. If
Mr.
Clark
had
awarded
VISAJ
three
points
for
its
response
to
Item
#17
VISAJ
would
have
tied
for
the
highest
score
in
Ward
2
with
37
points.
And
VISAJs
Business
Plan
and
Operating
Plan
received
some
of
the
highest
scores
of
any
applicants
in
any
ward.
67. Upon
information
and
belief,
Mr.
Clark
declined
to
award
three
points
to
VISAJ
for
its
response
to
Item
#17
because
he
had
improperly
concluded
that
other
applicants
were
better
qualified
based
on
his
own
subjective
criteria.
68. Moreover,
conflicts
between
the
Code,
AMED
Regulations
and
written
application
materials
made
the
Citys
criteria
for
evaluating
Item
#17
unnecessarily
vague
and
confusing.
9
69. Mr.
Clarks
decision
to
award
three
points
to
Applicants
who
parroted
certain
catchphrases
in
Response
to
Item
#17and
his
decision
to
ignore
VISAJs
superior
responseconstitute
an
abuse
of
discretion.
Similarly,
AMED
abused
its
discretion
by
providing
carte
blanche
to
Mr.
Clark
to
award
all
or
nothing
points
based
on
his
own
personal
criteria.
III.
CLAIMS
First
Claim
For
Relief
(CRCP
106(a)(4))
70. VISAJ
incorporates
Paragraphs
1
through
68
above
as
though
fully
set
forth
herein.
71. Defendants
abused
their
discretion
and
exceeded
their
jurisdiction
by,
among
other
things,
refusing
award
VISAJ
an
additional
license
or
implement
Auroras
tiebreaker
system
after
VISAJ
successfully
proved
that
AMED
had
committed
a
mathematical
scoring
error,
refusing
to
award
VISAJ
three
points
in
response
to
Item
#
17,
improperly
considering
the
scores
of
mystery
reviewer
#3,
refusing
to
reveal
the
identity
of
Reviewer
#3
and
awarding
licenses
according
to
a
pliable
set
of
criteria
based
upon
the
preferences
of
AMED
officials
rather
than
the
Code
and
AMEDs
written
regulations.
72. VISAJ
respectfully
asks
this
Court
to
direct
AMED
to
award
VISAJ
a
license.
SECOND
CLAIM
FOR
RELIEF
(Violation
of
Substantive
and
Procedural
Due
Process)
73. VISAJ
incorporates
Paragraphs
1
through
71
above
as
though
fully
set
forth
herein.
74. Defendants
violated
VISAJs
state
and
federal
rights
to
due
process
and
equal
protection
of
the
law
by
failing
to
implement
a
fair
and
transparent
process
for
evaluating
applications,
failing
to
provide
a
meaningful
administrative
review
process,
failing
to
provide
requested
documents
prior
to
hearing,
impermissibly
departing
from
Defendants
own
written
criteria
for
evaluating
applications
and
failing
to
take
any
action
to
grant
VISAJ
a
license
after
VISAJ
demonstrated
that
the
licensure
process
was
fundamentally
flawed
and
riddled
with
errors.
75. Defendants
actions
constituted
a
violation
of
due
process
under
Article
II
25
of
the
Colorado
Constitution
and
the
Fifth
and
Fourteenth
Amendments
of
the
U.S.
Constitution.
10
76. Defendants
acted
under
the
color
of
state
law
to
deprive
VISAJ
of
its
federal
civil
rights
in
violation
of
42
U.S.C.
1983.2
77. VISAJ
requests
an
award
of
its
reasonable
attorney
fees
pursuant
to
42
U.S.C.
1988.
78. Defendants
violations
of
the
rights
to
due
process
and
equal
protection
under
the
laws
resulted
in
damages
to
be
proven
at
trial.
THIRD
CLAIM
FOR
RELIEF
(CRCP
57Declaratory
Judgment)
79. VISAJ
incorporates
Paragraphs
1
through
77
above
as
though
fully
set
forth
herein.
80. Despite
the
fact
that
Mr.
Batchelor
acknowledged
that
AMED
committed
a
clear
mathematical
error,
he
held
that
VISAJ
was
entitled
to
no
relief.
VISAJ
asks
this
Court
to
hold
that
the
ability
to
appeal
AMEDs
decision
necessarily
included
the
right
to
compel
AMED
to
reverse
its
decision
if
AMED
committed
an
error.
81. VISAJ
also
asks
this
Court
to
hold
that
Aurora
has
not
shown
a
compelling
need
nor
legal
basis
for
refusing
to
disclose
the
identity
of
the
independent
reviewers
or
to
provide
additional
documents
and
details
regarding
the
independent
review
process,
and
that
Auroras
refusal
to
provide
such
details
violates
Colorados
Open
Records
and
Open
Meetings
laws.
See,
e.g.,
C.R.S.
24-6-401
(It
is
declared
to
be
a
matter
of
statewide
concern
and
the
policy
of
this
state
that
the
formation
of
public
policy
is
public
business
and
may
not
be
conducted
in
secret.);
C.R.S.
24-72-201
(It
is
declared
to
be
the
public
policy
of
this
state
that
all
public
records
shall
be
open
for
inspection
by
any
person
at
reasonable
times,
except
as
otherwise
specifically
provided
by
law.)
82. VISAJ
respectfully
asks
this
Court
to
interpret
the
parties
rights
under
the
Aurora
Code
and
to
hold
that
the
Aurora
Code
permits,
and
in
fact
requires,
that
VISAJ
be
granted
a
license
under
the
circumstances
present
in
this
case;
and
to
require
AMED
to
issue
a
license
to
VISAJ,
or
provide
other
appropriate
relief
consistent
with
that
holding.
2 Undersigned counsel directs this Court to the Court of Appeals recent decision in Young v.
Larimer
County
Sheriffs
Office,
2014
COA
119
(Colo.
Ct.
App.
Sept.
11,
2014)
(no
claim
under
42
U.S.C.
1983
where
sheriffs
office
wrongfully
destroyed
plaintiffs
marijuana
plants).
Undersigned
counsel
respectfully
contends
that
Young
is
legally
and
factually
distinguishable
from
the
case
at
bar
and
that
VISAJ
has
a
viable
claim
under
42
U.S.C.
1983
under
the
circumstances
present
in
this
case.
11
12