DENVER DISTRICT COURT

1437 BANNOCK ST.

DENVER, CO 80204

MICHAEL ORTIZ,
Plaintiff,

vs.

HAPPY HAYNES, in her official

capacity as Executive Director,
Department of Parks and
Recreation,
CITY AND COUNTY OF
DENVER,
▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲
Defendants.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

LAW OFFICE OF CORRY & Case Number:
ASSOCIATES
Robert J. Corry, Jr. #32705 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
Abbey G. Moffitt #44170 ORDER REQUESTED
437 West Colfax Ave., Suite 300
Denver, Colorado 80204
Telephone 303-623-2244
Rob@RobCorry.com
Abbey@RobCorry.com

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Michael Ortiz, through undersigned counsel,

and files this Complaint against Defendants Happy Haynes, in her official

capacity, and the City and County of Denver, pursuant to the U.S.

Constitution’s First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection

Clause, and Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 106, for Declaratory,

Injunctive, and other relief as follows:

PARTIES, VENUE AND JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiff Michael Ortiz is an individual residing within the City

and County of Denver, Colorado, United States.

2. Defendant Happy Haynes is Director of Parks and Recreation,

City and County of Denver, and is sued in her official capacity.

3. Defendant City and County of Denver is a local governmental

entity.

4. Venue is proper in Denver County as it is the location where all

the claims alleged herein arose.

5. The District Court maintains jurisdiction over this appeal and

action pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)(I). An action brought pursuant to Rule

106 can include other independent claims, as here.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

6. On November 17, 2017, the City and County of Denver

prohibited, for three years, the previous permit holder Miguel Lopez from

applying for a permit on or around April 20, 2018 in Denver’s Civic Center

Park, and revoked Mr. Lopez’s annual Priority Event status for his event.

2
 7. Due to Mr. Lopez losing his Priority Event status and being

prohibited for three years from applying, Defendants Happy Haynes and

Denver Parks and Recreation established a procedure by which others could

apply for the Civic Center Park permit for April 20, 2018. (Plaintiff Exhibit

1, Denver Parks and Recreation Press Release of November 17, 2017,

incorporated herein by reference, and available on the official Denver

website at http://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/denver-parks-

and-recreation/news/2017/notice-of-issues-and-violations-upheld-in-appeal-

of-annual-420-r.html )

8. This was the sole official procedure established by Defendants

for issuance of this permit for 2018, and was never rescinded, amended, nor

modified.

9. Defendants’ official procedure provided that the new permit

would be issued on November 21, 2017 on a first-come-first-served basis.

Id.

10. Defendants’ official procedure prohibited anyone from

gathering on the property lining up at the doors of Wellington Webb

Building in advance of 12:01 a.m. on November 21, 2017. Id.

11. Defendants’ official procedure provided that multiple “doors”

to the Webb building would be open at 7:00 a.m. on November 21, 2017.

3
There was no restriction as to any particular door, and the official procedure

employed the plural, “doors.” Id.

12. Defendants’ official procedure provided that Parks Permit

Office inside the Webb Building would accept applications for this date and

location on a first-come, first-served basis beginning at 8 a.m. Id.

13. On November 21, 2017, Plaintiff Michael Ortiz complied in all

respects with this official procedure, began waiting at the appropriate time

and not before, was first to arrive at the Permit Office, and Denver granted

him the Permit. (Plaintiff Exhibit 2, Permit #9023774, incorporated herein

by reference.)

14. Mr. Ortiz’s Permit #9023774 or application contained his

correct contact information, mailing address, phone number, and email

address, of which Defendants were aware and could have contacted Mr.

Ortiz at any time.

15. In the five weeks following the issuance of Mr. Ortiz’s permit,

Mr. Ortiz made it essentially his full-time job planning the 2018 event,

assembling and contracting for a production team to create and execute a

massive event expected to attract 100,000 people, acquiring financing,

securing talent, signing contracts, pursuing insurance, contracting for

cleanup, barricades, security, fencing, vendors, and otherwise complying

4
with all other requirements of the City for such an event of this large

magnitude. Mr. Ortiz raised and expected to spend approximately $1.4

Million Dollars to produce the event for which he had been granted a Permit.

Mr. Ortiz’s plan was provided to Defendant the City and County of Denver,

which is aware of it.

16. During this five-week time period, Mr. Ortiz received

absolutely no indication, formal or informal, from Defendants that his

Permit for the April 20, 2018 event, that had already been granted, was in

jeopardy for any reason.

17. On or about December 28, 2017, without any advance warning,

Defendants emailed a Revocation Letter to Mr. Ortiz, using an incorrectly-

spelled email address for Mr. Ortiz. (Plaintiff Exhibit 3, Revocation of 2018

Park Permit Application with attachments.) Happy Haynes’ incorrect

spelling of Mr. Ortiz’s email address may have caused some delay in his

receipt of Defendants’ email.

18. Happy Haynes’ Revocation Letter purports to revoke Mr.

Ortiz’s Permit, but Happy Haynes cites no law, regulation, ordinance, nor

other legal basis for the revocation, which is invalid and constitutes an abuse

of Happy Haynes’ discretion as a quasi-judicial act.

5
 19. Happy Haynes’ Letter is replete with misrepresentations and

deceitful statements, as follows:

HAPPY HAYNES
MISREPRESENTATION AND
DECEITFUL STATEMENT TRUTH

“The [DPR] has investigated the No investigation was conducted.

circumstances surrounding the Even minimal features present in any
application you submitted …” investigation--such as a conversation
with Mr. Ortiz--did not occur.
Mr. Ortiz lied to gain access to the Mr. Ortiz, in fact, had applications in
Webb Building by stating he had hand for other Denver parks as well
applications for other parks. as an application in hand for Civic
Center Park.
“As you are aware, all persons Mr. Ortiz was not “aware” that Civic
seeking a permit for April 20, 2018 Center Park applicants were
at Civic Center Park were required to restricted to the Court Street
line up at the Court street entrance, as there was never any such
entrance…” “one door” restriction or
requirement, and in fact, the City’s
own procedure refers to “doors” in
the plural and does not mention
Court Street nor contain a restriction.
Plaintiff Ex. 1.
DPR has equally competent evidence Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Lopez were
that this application is for Miguel present together on November 17,
Lopez; namely Mr. Lopez and Mr. 2017, but filled out unrelated
Ortiz coming to Webb building on paperwork that had nothing to do
November 17, 2017 and filling out with Mr. Ortiz’s Permit for Civic
an application. Center Park on April 20, 2018.
Mr. Ortiz’s permit application was The application was filled out by
not filled out by him but rather by Santino Walter and signed by Mr.
Mr. Lopez, because of misspellings Ortiz, not Miguel Lopez. It is not in
and handwriting that “appears” to be Mr. Lopez’s handwriting and this is a
Mr. Lopez’s handwriting. fabrication by Happy Haynes, who is
not a handwriting expert. There is
nothing improper about a member of
the production staff filling out
6
 applications. It was signed by Mr.
Ortiz himself.

20. Even assuming arguendo that there is any truth to anything said

by Happy Haynes in the letter--which Mr. Ortiz strongly disputes--none of it

legally justifies revocation of Mr. Ortiz’s Permit. There is no requirement in

any law or regulation that an individual fill out the entirety of an application

and they are routinely filled out by production staff, no restriction on who

can assist filling out the application, no spelling requirement, no “one door”

permit waiting restriction, and even no ban on misrepresentations or deceit,

in law, regulation, or the history of Denver.

21. After revocation of Mr. Ortiz’s Permit, the City then awarded

the Permit for April 20, 2018 to a for-profit corporate entity known and

doing business as Euflora, which sells marijuana for profit, in violation of

Federal Law.

22. Euflora’s application and its related conduct have even greater

deficiencies than those alleged of Mr. Ortiz.

23. For example, Euflora and its agents blatantly violated the City’s

requirement that no one gather at the Webb Building in advance of 12:01

a.m. on November 21, 2017. Euflora employees, by their own statements,

gathered and camped on the Webb Building property approximately 28 days

7
before November 21, 2017, and also committed a criminal offense in

violation of Denver Revised Municipal Code § 38-86.2, which bans urban

camping.

24. Moreover, unlike Mr. Ortiz, who has no formal business

relationship with Miguel Lopez, Euflora was a sponsor of and assisted Mr.

Lopez with the production of the 2017 event, and had an ongoing business

relationship with Mr. Lopez’s event.

25. It is an abuse of discretion for Defendants to revoke Mr. Ortiz’s

Permit for the alleged reasons, which are factually false and even if they

were true, still do not legally justify revocation of a permit, and further an

abuse of discretion to award the permit to an entity that committed the same

or greater violations and did not prevail in Denver’s stated “first-come-first-

served” rule.

26. Mr. Ortiz suffers irreparable harm and deprivation of

fundamental constitutional rights if he does not have the permit and cannot

make plans and advance arrangements to put on the 2018 event, which is an

event of massive scale requiring advance planning.

8
 CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) APPEAL OF JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL

DISCRETION; COLORADO DECLARATORY RELIEF ACT and RULE

57; CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS; U.S. Constitution, First and

Fourteenth Amendments)

1. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

2. Defendant acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial function, and

abused its discretion in revoking Mr. Ortiz’s Permit, and further abused its

discretion in awarding a new permit to an entity that committed even greater

alleged violations.

3. The City denied Mr. Ortiz his constitutional rights of freedom

of speech, free association, free assembly, equal protection, and other rights

by treating him differently than others similarly-situated with a purpose of

exercising a prior restraint and viewpoint discrimination due to his

associations and the content of his speech.

4. An actual controversy exists between the parties, the Plaintiff is

suffering ongoing and irreparable harm due to the Defendant’s conduct, and

will continue to suffer harm until which point the Defendant’s actions are

declared unlawful and enjoined by this court.

9
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests relief as follows:

1. To review the lower judicial or quasi-judicial body and find that

it abused its discretion in revoking the Permit of Mr. Ortiz;

2. Enter a declaratory judgment that the Defendant’s actions and

conduct violated and continues to violate the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution;

3. To enter a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction,

and permanent injunction, against Defendants prohibiting and enjoining

them from revoking Plaintiff Michael Ortiz’s Permit for an event in Civic

Center Park on April 20, 2018;

4. Any such further legal and equitable relief as the Court may

deem just and proper, and demands a jury on all issues so triable.

Date: January 12, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF CORRY &

ASSOCIATES

/s/Robert J. Corry, Jr.

(original signature retained at law office)
_________________________
Robert J. Corry, Jr.

10