HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016CV1308 - FTN - FORT COLLINS V. CITY OF FORT COLLINS - 017 - DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO DISMISS AND RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN EXCESS OF COURT'S PAGE LIMITATIONIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-01308-RBJ-KLM
FREE THE NIPPLE – FORT COLLINS,
BRITTIANY HOAGLAND,
SAMANTHA SIX,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION TO DISMISS AND RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION IN EXCESS OF THE COURT’S PAGE LIMITATION
Defendant City of Fort Collins, Colorado (“the City”), by its attorneys, Andrew D.
Ringel, Esq., Gillian Dale, Esq., and Christina S. Gunn, Esq., of Hall & Evans, LLC hereby
submits this Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss and Response to Motion for
Preliminary Injunction in Excess of the Court’s Page Limitation, as follows:
1. Certificate of Conferral: Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(A), the undersigned
counsel contacted counsel of record the Plaintiffs, and is authorized to state Plaintiffs do not
oppose this Motion.
2. This Court’s Practice Standards state counsel should limit motion and responses
to fifteen (15) pages, or fewer if possible. [Practice Standards, p. 2.]
Case 1:16-cv-01308-RBJ Document 17 Filed 08/02/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5
2
3. The City’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Response to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Preliminary Injunction are due on August 2, 2016.
4. Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains three claims for relief, alleging violations of their
First Amendment Constitutional rights, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Equal Rights Amendment to the Colorado
Constitution. In support of Plaintiffs claims, the Complaint contains citations to numerous cases,
websites and municipal code ordinances.
5. Contemporaneously with this Motion, the City is filing a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety. Because of the nature of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, the
City must present the Court with the analytical framework as well as a survey of relevant
national caselaw related to analogous public nudity claims. Additionally, the City must respond,
as necessary, to the citations contained in the Complaint.
6. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is eighteen (18) pages in length and
outlines both the elements and arguments for preliminary injunctions generally, as well as fact-
specific arguments and citations in support of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.
7. The City is also filing Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction
contemporaneously with this Motion, which presents the relevant background to the City’s
public nudity ordinance and Plaintiff’s complaints, in addition to relevant caselaw and responses
to Plaintiffs’ arguments. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction did not
contain a statement of facts, but merely adopted those facts alleged in the Complaint. The City’s
Response, then, appears longer by comparison because the City must include its presentation of
relevant facts.
Case 1:16-cv-01308-RBJ Document 17 Filed 08/02/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
3
8. The City has worked diligently to complete its Motion to Dismiss and Response
to Motion for Preliminary Injunction within the Court’s page limitation. Despite best efforts, the
City’s Motions exceed the Court’s page limitations.
9. Due to the complexity and length of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims in this
matter, the City requests leave to file briefs that exceed the Court’s page limitations. The Motion
to Dismiss is twenty-two (22) pages and the Response to Motion for Preliminary Judgment is
approximately thirty-one (31) pages.
WHEREFORE, Defendant the City of Fort Collins, Colorado respectfully requests this
Court issue an Order granting it leave to file its Motion to Dismiss in Excess of the Court’s Page
Limitation by seven (7) pages and Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Excess of
the Court’s Page Limitation by sixteen (16) pages.
Case 1:16-cv-01308-RBJ Document 17 Filed 08/02/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
4
Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of August, 2016.
/s/ Christina S. Gunn
Andrew D. Ringel, Esq.
Gillian Dale, Esq.
Christina S. Gunn
HALL & EVANS, L.L.C.
1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2052
Phone: 303-628-3300
Fax: 303-628-3368
ringela@hallevans.com
daleg@hallevans.com
gunnc@hallevans.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CITY OF
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Case 1:16-cv-01308-RBJ Document 17 Filed 08/02/16 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 2nd day of August, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss and
Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Excess of the Court’s Page Limitation
with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to
the following e-mail addresses:
David A. Lane, Esq.
dlane@kln-law.com
Andy McNulty, Esq.
amcnulty@kln-law.com
Jessica K. Peck, Esq.
jessica@jpdenver.com
Carrie M. Dagget, Esq.
cdaggett@fcgov.com
/s/ Nicole Marion, Legal Assistant to
Christina Gunn
Hall & Evans, L.L.C.
Attorneys for Defendants
1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2052
Phone: 303-628-3300
Fax: 303-628-3368
gunnc@hallevans.com
Case 1:16-cv-01308-RBJ Document 17 Filed 08/02/16 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5