DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY,

COLORADO

Jefferson County Justice Center

100 Jefferson County Parkway
Golden, Colorado 80401

Plaintiffs/Appellants: ▲COURT USE ONLY▲

MARC A. GIULIANI, an individual; FOOTPRINTS
HEALTH AND WELLNESS, INC., a Colorado Case Number:
corporation; Highway 61, LLC.
Div.: Ctrm.:
Defendants/Appellees:
THE JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, a body politic on behalf of the
County of Jefferson; THE JEFFERSON COUNTY
DIVISION OF PLANNING AND ZONING, a division
of Jefferson County; THE JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, a division of Jefferson EXPEDITED RELIEF
County. REQUESTED PURSUANT TO
C.R.C.P. 57 AND C.R.C.P. 65
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellants:

Robert T. Hoban, Esq., Reg. No. 33151

Hoban & Feola, LLC
600 Seventeenth Street
Suite 2800 South Tower
Denver, Colorado 80202
303-674-7000 telephone
bob@hobanandfeola.com

Lauren Davis, Reg. No. 34510

600 Seventeenth Street
Suite 2800 South Tower
Denver, Colorado 80202
303-634-2253 telephone
laurendavislaw@hotmail.com

COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Plaintiffs/Appellants, Marc A. Giuliani, Footprints Health and Wellness, Inc., and
Highway 61, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their above-referenced attorneys,
set forth their Complaint and Application for Injunctive Relief and assert as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Marc A. Giuliani is an individual resident of Colorado, who resides at

7731 S. Carr Street, Littleton, Colorado 80128.

2. Plaintiff Footprints Health and Wellness, Inc. is a Colorado corporation, whose

principal place of business is 8250 West Coal Mine Avenue, Unit 4, Littleton, Colorado 80128.

3. Highway 61, LLC is the property owner, whose principal place of business is
5690 DTC Boulevard, Ste. 285W, Greenwood Village, CO 80111.

4. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners is a Colorado body politic.

5. The Jefferson County Division of Planning and Zoning is a division of Jefferson

County, which is responsible for administration and enforcement of the Jefferson County Zoning
Resolution.

6. The Jefferson County Board of Adjustment is a Zoning is a division of Jefferson

County, which is responsible for variances, appeals, and other related decisions under the
Jefferson County Zoning Resolution.

NATURE OF THE CASE

7 This is an action pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106 for judicial review/certiorari and

C.R.C.P. 57, for declaratory relief, as well as an action seeking redress for State Constitutional
violations.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Pursuant to Article VI, Section 9, of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, the
District Court located in Jefferson County, Colorado, is a trial court of record with general
jurisdiction and has original jurisdiction of all civil, probate and criminal cases, except as
otherwise provided by law. Because the actions underlying Plaintiffs’ claims took place in
Jefferson County, this Court properly has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint.

9. Venue is proper in Jefferson County, Colorado, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98(c) in that

the actions underlying Plaintiffs’ claims took place in Jefferson County.

-2-
 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

A. RELEVANT FACTUAL BASES

10. On or about September 21, 2009, Footprints Health and Wellness, Inc.
(“Footprints”) executed a commercial lease, for a term of thirty-eight months, for the purpose of
operating a medical marijuana caregiving facility is 8250 West Coal Mine Avenue, Unit 4,
Littleton, , Jefferson County, Colorado 80128 (the “Property”).

11. Highway 61, LLC is the lessor of said property and executed said commercial
lease with full knowledge of the lessee’s intentions.

12. At that time, Marc A. Giuliani (”Giuliani”), a principal of Footprints Health and
Wellness, Inc., also executed a personal guaranty of said commercial lease.

13. Prior to entering into the commercial lease and opening for business, both
Footprints and Mr. Giuliani researched the applicable zoning for the Dutch Creek shopping
center and discovered that the Property is located in a Planned development (P-D) Zone District,
which “is a versatile zoning mechanism allowing for land development of any nature (residential,
commercial, conservation, mining, industrial, public or quasi-public, etc.)….” See Jefferson
County Zoning Resolution, Section 18.

14. The Zoning Resolution clarifies this rule by stating that the “Planned
Development Zone District may include uses of any nature.” See Jefferson County Zoning
Resolution, Section 18 (B) (1). “The permitted uses and standards for a particular Planned
Development Zone District are those which were approved by the Board of County
Commissioners through the Planned Development Zoning cases and included in the Official
Development Plan (ODP).” See Jefferson County Zoning Resolution, Section 18 B 2.

15. The ODP relating to the Dutch Creek Shopping Center, in which Footprints
Health and Wellness Center is located, was recorded with Jefferson County in 1983. It was later
amended in 1984 and recorded. Footprints’ Unit is located in Land Use Area "A" of the ODP

16. The 1984 ODP's statement of intent is to "include service type retail, wholesale
tenants and tradespersons..."

17. The original and 1984 ODPs specifically permit “medical offices or clinics.”
(emphasis added).

18. The ODP further permits "single use or multi-use convenience retail shopping
facilities, including but not limited to... retail sales and service establishments; drug stores…;
general light distribution of any type;…medical supplies distribution; and medical equipment
sales and service…" (emphasis added). The ODP also specifically allows “low intensity
-3-
specialty goods and services including but not limited to…lounges and private clubs.”
(emphasis added)

19. Every product and service offered at Footprints Health and Wellness Center is
compatible with the permitted uses delineated in the Jefferson County Zoning Resolution and the
Dutch Creek Center ODP.

20. Footprints Health and Wellness Center is a service type retail outlet, akin to a
drug store, that offers medical services and products. It provides a specialty goods and services
for qualified patients only. Because Mr. Giuliani only provides medicine and services to patients
he is designated as the caregiver for, it is properly considered a low intensity specialty use. Its use
is also properly considered a medical clinic or a medical supply distributor.

21. Footprints and Giuliani relied on the plain language of the Zoning Resolution.
See Board of County Com’rs of Weld County v. Hawkins, 690 P.2d 1299 (Colo. 1984).

22. On September 14, 2009, Footprints received a sales tax license from the State of
Colorado. On October 14, 2009, Footprints received a sales tax license from Jefferson County.

23. Footprints hired a contractor (CQL Constructors) to perform tenant improvements

at the Property to facilitate the opening of the business.

24. On October 2, 2009, CQL Constructors duly presented an application for tenant
finish at the Property and received approval therefor on or about October 6th.

25. CQL Constructors appropriately described the nature of the permit request as for
"Tenant Finish for office use, Footprints Health and Wellness. Additions, Remodels and
Conversions.” CQL Constructors also presented the County with a construction drawing and
premises layout.

26. The site and building plans were approved by Jefferson County on October 2,
2009, and subsequently reviewed for compliance by the County on October 5, 2009.

27. During the tenant improvement process, Jefferson County approved various
aspects of the build-out process.

28. The Littleton Fire Department performed an inspection of the Property on

October 23 , and granted their approval on or about October 31st.
rd

29. Upon completion of the tenant improvements by CQL Constructors, Jefferson

County performed an inspection of the Property (on October 27, 2009). The County required
that a handicap hand rail be installed in the facility’s bathroom.

-4-
 30. The handicap handrail was installed and the Property was again inspected by
Jefferson County on October 28, 2009.

31. Footprints began to move into the Property on the evening of October 27, 2009.

32. Footprints officially opened for business on October 30, 2009.

33. Mr. Giuliani and Footprints never hid the intended use of the facility from
Jefferson County inspectors and at all times intended that the Property be used as a medical
marijuana caregiver facility. Jefferson County sheriffs even visited Mr. Giuliani and Footprints
on multiple occasions, introduced themselves and discussed the use of Footprints as a medical
marijuana dispensary.

34. On or about December 22, 2009, Jefferson County issued a zoning violation
notice, which purports to inform the Plaintiffs of an alleged zoning violation, as “the operation of
a medical marijuana facility is not a permitted use in this PD zone district.” See Violation
Notice.

35. In response thereto, on January 20, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a written Letter of Appeal
and Request for Variance, which constituted a formal appeal of the Violation Notice.

36. The bases for appeal and request for variance, which are set forth in the Letter of
Appeal, are expressly incorporated herein and reasserted herein by reference.

37. A hearing on said Letter of Appeal and Request for Variance was held before the
Jefferson County Board of Adjustment on April 7, 2010.

38. The Board upheld the zoning administrator’s determination that a medical
marijuana dispensary is not a permitted use in the PD Zone District. The Board found that
because a medical marijuana dispensary was not a use contemplated when the ODP was written
(before 2000), it is not a permissible use. The Board further found that “a medical marijuana
dispensary is not a drug store, medical office or clinic, a single use or multi-use convenience
retail shopping facility.” See Resolution No, 10-101182.

39. The Zoning Administrator and City Attorney further stated that the Jefferson
County Zoning Resolution does not allow for medical marijuana caregiver facilities anywhere in
unincorporated Jefferson County.

40. The above-described ruling and decision constitutes a final action by Jefferson
County to which there is no additional administrative remedies.

41. Taken together, the County maintains a de facto ban on medical marijuana
caregiver facilities, including but not limited to Footprints, by assuming the formal position that
-5-
there are no properties within the County on which a medical marijuana caregiver facility may
operate. This constitutes a violation of the Colorado Constitution, as set forth more fully below.

42. With all of that said, Plaintiffs challenge and appeal said actions, formal policy
positions, and the above-referenced decision as set forth below.

B. THE RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Amendment XX

43. In November of 2000, the voters of Colorado passed Amendment 20 to the

Colorado Constitution, codified at Colorado Constitution Article XVIII § 14.

44. Pursuant to the Colorado Constitution, Article XVIII § 14, medical use of
marijuana is legal under Colorado law for those suffering from debilitating medical conditions
and for their caregivers.

45. The Colorado Constitution Article XVIII § 14(6)(h)(i) provides that a patient may
designate a primary care-giver to control, acquire, produce and transport medical marijuana on
the patient’s behalf.

46. The Colorado Constitution Article XVIII § 14(1)(f) defines a primary care-giver
as “…a person, other than the patient and the patient’s physician, who is eighteen years of age or
older and has significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient who has a
debilitating medical condition.”

47. These provisions of the Colorado Constitution specifically afford patients and
care-givers very specific rights to possess and distribute medical marijuana, as well as providing
these parties property rights protection related to these activities.

48. The Colorado Constitution contains specific protections for property where the
property is used for the medical use of marijuana:

(e) Any property interest that is possessed, owned, or used in connection with
the medical use of marijuana or acts incidental to such use, shall not be harmed,
neglected, injured, or destroyed while in the possession of state or local law
enforcement officials where such property has been seized in connection with the
claimed medical use of marijuana. Any such property interest shall not be
forfeited under any provision of state law providing for the forfeiture of property
other than as a sentence imposed after conviction of a criminal offense or entry of
a plea of guilty to such offense. Marijuana and paraphernalia seized by state or
local law enforcement officials from a patient or primary care-giver in connection
with the claimed medical use of marijuana shall be returned immediately upon the
-6-
 determination of the district attorney or his or her designee that the patient or
primary care-giver is entitled to the protection contained in this section as may be
evidenced, for example, by a decision not to prosecute, the dismissal of charges,
or acquittal.

Colorado Constitution, Article XVIII §14(e). This means that the Colorado Constitution
specifically provides care-givers and patients a vested property interest in anything that is
possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marijuana or acts incidental to
such use.

49. This Constitutional provision provides protection for a care-giver or patient’s

“acquisition, possession, manufacture, production, use, sale, distribution, dispensing, or
transportation of marijuana,” so long as it is for medical use. Furthermore, the Constitution
cannot be read to produce absurd results, and must provide an outlet for these specified
constitutional rights. As such, Caregiver facilities (also known as dispensaries) are authorized
under the Colorado Constitution.

50. In passing these Constitutional changes, the voters of Colorado have expressed
their intent that the field of medical marijuana law is a matter of pressing statewide concern.
Because the County’s actions described below conflict with these general laws by curtailing a
right of seriously ill Coloradoans to obtain the medicine they need through the distribution
channels identified by the State, the general rule of Colorado’s Constitution must prevail over the
County’s policy/ordinance.

ii. The County May Not Ban Constitutionally Authorized Uses

51. While Colorado Law affords local governments additional latitude in regulating
land use matters, this power is not absolute.

52. Here, the County’s land use authority is not without bounds. Salle v. Giggal, 26
P.2d 499, 501 (1953). In particular, local land use ordinances banning an activity that a statute
authorizes are subject to heightened scrutiny in preemption analysis. Colorado Mining
Association v. Summit County, 199 P.3d 718 (Colo. 2009).

53. In addition, Courts are to examine with particular scrutiny and circumspection
those ordinances that serve to ban certain land uses or activities instead of delineating
appropriate areas for those uses or activities. See Combined Commerce Corp. v. City and Cty of
Denver, 542 P.2d 79, 82-83 (1975); Exton Quarries Inc. v. Zoning Bd. Of Adjustment of West
Whiteland Twp., 228 A.2d 169, 179 (1967)(cited by Colorado Mining Association v. Summit
County, supra).

54. Though counties generally have broad land use planning authority, that authority
does not include the right to ban disfavored uses from all zoning districts, like the County has
-7-
done here. Combined Commc’n Corp., 542 P.2d at 82-83.

55. Rather, local land use authority is to be exercised by designating appropriate areas
for different land uses and placing conditions on those uses. Colorado Mining Association v.
Summit County, supra.

iii. C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)

56. Aside from the constitutional violations alleged below, the County’s April 7, 2010
decision lacks legal foundation, is unsupported by the evidence, constitutes arbitrary and
capricious action, and is clearly erroneous.

57. C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) provides the mechanism for a judicial challenge of such an
agency/administrative decision.

58. Specifically, C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) affords parties relief where “any governmental
body or officer or any lower judicial body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has
exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, and there is no plain, speedy and adequate
remedy otherwise provided by law…”

59. Here, as alleged throughout this Complaint, Plaintiffs submit that Jefferson
County has exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion in rendering its April 7, 2010
decision. Furthermore, Plaintiffs submit that there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
otherwise provided by law.

60. For these reasons, Plaintiffs have been injured, and they seek a reversal and/or a
remand of this decision.

61. And, as a direct and proximate result of these County actions, Plaintiffs have
suffered, and will continue to suffer, the loss of their respective rights to open and operate a
medical marijuana wellness center to furnish medicine to qualified patients, which, in turn,
deprives the seriously ill of the rights promised them by the voters of Colorado through
Amendment Twenty. Mr. Giuliani is the caregiver to many patients who are being harmed and
whose Constitutional rights are being violated as a result of the Defendants’ actions.

62. The County’s actions have clearly and intentionally interfered with these
Plaintiffs’ rights under the Colorado Constitution, and have eliminated a lawful and enforceable
State interest, as defined in Article XVII, Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution.

63. With all of that said, Plaintiffs seek relief as follows.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)) – Judicial Review)
-8-
 64. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs and allegations as if fully set forth
herein.

65. The April 7, 2010 decision of the Board of Adjustment is clearly in error and
constitutes an arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the County’s Zoning Resolution and of
the ODP resolution of approval.

66. The County Board of Adjustment has exceeded its statutory and constitutional
authority by adopting a ban on medical marijuana caregiver facilities and through its April 7,
2010 decision, which denied Plaintiffs’ appeal.

67. As a result of the foregoing, the County Board of Adjustment abused its
discretion. As such, the matter should be reversed and the court should determine that the
medical marijuana use is a permitted use.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Judgment pursuant to the Colorado Declaratory Judgments
Act and C.R.C.P. 57 that the Defendant’s Ban on Medical Marijuana Caregiver facilities is
Preempted by State Law)

68. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs and allegations as if fully set forth
herein.

69. An actual controversy exists with regard to the legality and the validity of the
County’s ban on medical marijuana caregiver facilities.

70. The rights of all Plaintiffs are adversely affected by the County’s ban on medical
marijuana caregiver facilities.

71. Specifically, the private property rights of Plaintiffs Footprints and Giuliani have
been adversely impacted by the ban on medical marijuana caregiver facilities.

72. In addition, the rights of these Plaintiffs under Article XVIII, Section 14, have
been adversely impacted by the County’s ban on medical marijuana caregiver facilities.

73. The County has exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority by adopting a
ban on medical marijuana caregiver facilities.

74. These actions depart from permitted areas of land use regulation and intrude into
areas of exclusive state regulation and oversight, as fundamental constitutional rights and issues
of statewide concern are at play.

-9-
 75. Constitutionally protected property interests are a matter of statewide concern and
must be treated uniformly throughout the state. JAM Restaurant, Inc. v. City of Longmont, 140
P.3d 192 (Colo.App. 2006); Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 15; Colorado Constitution
Article XVIII, Section 14(2)(e).

76. The State’s interest in fulfilling its mandate to protect property rights and the
accessibility of medical marijuana are sufficiently dominant to override the County’s ban on
medical marijuana caregiver facilities.

77. The County cannot ban disfavored uses from all zoning districts.

78. All Plaintiffs have acted lawfully at all relevant times.

79. The County’s actions in banning medical marijuana caregiver facilities sets new
restrictions and limitations on property rights and on the implementation on the State’s
constitutionally-mandated medical marijuana program.

80. The ban is in direct conflict with provisions of the Colorado Constitution.

81. Accordingly, the ban is preempted by the relevant statutory and Constitutional
Law of the State of Colorado.

82. Plaintiffs, therefore, seek declaratory relief accordingly, and further seek an
injunction enjoining the defendants and their servants, agents and employees from prohibiting
and interfering with legally permitted medical marijuana caregiving uses.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Equitable Estoppel and/or Declaratory Judgment pursuant to the Colorado Declaratory
Judgments Act and C.R.C.P. 57 that the Defendant’s Ban on Medical Marijuana Caregiver
Facilities is not enforceable because the County is equitably estopped from enforcing the
ban)

83. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs and allegations as if fully set forth
herein.

84. In the Fall of 2009, Plaintiffs, entered into a multi-year lease to operate a medical
marijuana wellness center at 8250 W. Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123.

85. Subsequently, Plaintiffs Footprints and Giuliani invested tens of thousands of

dollars in the business location, with plans for substantial additional investment in the property
and business.

86. The subject property is zoned properly as allowing “any use,” including medical
-10-
offices and clinics, drug stores and other retail establishments. The use intended by these
Plaintiffs is in accordance with these uses and is 100% legal under the Colorado Constitution and
other implementing Colorado Law.

87. The County has no ordinance banning or regulating medical marijuana caregiver
facilities.

88. While the County enacted a moratorium on January 12, 2010, it is undisputed that
this was adopted long after Footprints began business operations. Thus, the moratorium does not
and cannot apply to Footprints.

89. In October, 2009, Plaintiffs Footprints and Giuliani (a primary caregiver under the
foregoing Constitutional provisions) applied for and received approval by Jefferson County for
its business operations and tenant improvements.

90. In addition, Footprints obtained all appropriate sales tax licenses for the Property.

91. In doing so, these Plaintiffs relied on unmistakable actions and representations
from the County, and upon the County’s own Zoning Resolution, that Footprints was properly
operating in an appropriate zone district, and that the business was not banned or prohibited
within the County limits.

92. Footprints ultimately opened the medical marijuana caregiver facility at said
location under the d/b/a name, Footprints Health and Wellness Center.

93. At the time the business was opened, it was lawful under the applicable County
Zoning Resolution, and under Colorado Law.

94. These Plaintiffs promptly paid their sales tax and any required licensing fees. The
County accepted these monies.

95. Months after opening for business, the County delivered the above-described
Violation Notice.

96. These Plaintiffs relied on the representations and actions of the County.

97. These Plaintiffs rights had vested pre-moratorium for operating the subject
medical marijuana caregiver facility at the Property.

98. As such, Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief from the Court stopping the Defendant
from enforcing its ban and overturning the April 7, 2010 decision.

99. In addition, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that their right to operate Footprints had
-11-
vested pre-moratorium at this Property.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Judgment pursuant to the Colorado Declaratory Judgments
Act and C.R.C.P. 57 and Just Compensation because the Defendant’s Ban on Medical
Marijuana Caregiver Facilities and its subsequent actions are in violation of C.R.S. §38-1-
101(3)(a))

100. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs and allegations as if fully set forth
herein.

101. An actual controversy exists with regard to the legality and the validity of the
County’s ban on medical marijuana caregiver facilities.

102. The rights of Plaintiffs are adversely affected by the County’s ban on medical
marijuana caregiver facilities.

103. Specifically, the private property rights of Plaintiffs have been adversely impacted
by the County ban on medical marijuana caregiver facilities.

104. The County has exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority by adopting a
ban on medical marijuana caregiver facilities.

105. These actions depart from traditional areas of land use regulation and intrude into
areas of exclusive state regulation and oversight, as fundamental constitutional rights and issues
of statewide concern are at play.

106. Constitutionally protected property interests are a matter of statewide concern and
must be treated uniformly throughout the state. JAM Restaurant, Inc. v. City of Longmont, 140
P.3d 192 (Colo.App. 2006); Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 15; Colorado Constitution
Article XVIII, Section 14(2)(e).

107. C.R.S. §38-1-101(3)(a) wholly prevents the County from enforcing its ban.

108. C.R.S. §38-1-101(3)(a) states that:

(3) (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, a local
government shall not enact or enforce an ordinance, resolution, or
regulation that requires a nonconforming property use that was lawful at
the time of its inception to be terminated or eliminated by amortization.

109. This statute was enacted to protect and defend fundamental civil rights of persons
to property and to ensure that persons throughout the State are not unjustly deprived of their
-12-
property rights.

110. In fact, the Legislature expressly identified termination of uses as a problem that
should be dealt with in a uniform manner throughout the State.

111. Here, as stated above, the use of the subject land was permitted by the County at
the time it began operation.

112. At all times, these Plaintiffs operated at the subject location lawfully.

113. But here, the County did not even afford these Plaintiffs an opportunity to
amortize the business prior to requiring it shut down.

114. The County took an otherwise lawful use and decided to shut it down by all-of-a-
sudden determining it to be a nonconforming use.

115. But, even if the County did afford these Plaintiffs with the opportunity to amortize
the business prior to shutdown, its actions are wholly inconsistent with C.R.S. §38-1-101(3)(a).

116. Thus, Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that the County’s actions violate C.R.S.
§38-1-101(3)(a), as well as just compensation accordingly.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Due Process Violation Under the Colorado Constitution – the Defendant’s Ban on Medical
Marijuana Caregiver Facilities and the County’s Subsequent Actions Constitute a
Deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Vested Constitutional Rights Without Due Process)

117. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs and allegations as if fully set forth
herein.

118. An actual controversy exists with regard to the legality and the validity of the
County’s ban on medical marijuana caregiver facilities.

119. In addition, a controversy exists with regard to the County’s later actions related
to alleged zoning violations.

120. The rights of all Plaintiffs are adversely affected by the County ban on medical
marijuana caregiver facilities.

121. Specifically, the vested constitutional private property rights of Plaintiffs under
Article II, Section 15, Colo. Const., have been taken away without due process of law.

122. In addition, the rights of all Plaintiffs under Article XVIII, Section 14, have been
-13-
taken away by the County without due process of law.

123. The County has exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority by depriving
the Plaintiffs of these rights.

124. Plaintiffs seek equitable, injunctive, and other relief prohibiting the County from
depriving the Plaintiffs of these vested constitutional rights and compensatory damages and costs
accordingly.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Equal Protection Violation Under the Colorado Constitution – the Defendant’s Ban on
Medical Marijuana Caregiver Facilities Constitutes a Deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Vested
Constitutional Rights in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Colorado
Constitution)

125. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs and allegations as if fully set forth
herein.

126. An actual controversy exists with regard to the legality and the validity of the
County ban on medical marijuana caregiver facilities.

127. In addition, a controversy exists with regard to the County’s later actions related
to alleged zoning violations.

128. The rights of all Plaintiffs are adversely affected by the County ban on medical
marijuana caregiver facilities.

129. Specifically, the Equal Protection Clauses of the state constitution requires that all
persons subject to legislation shall be treated alike under similar circumstances; it requires that
individuals within a certain class be treated equally and that there exist reasonable grounds for
the classification.

130. Here, the County has instituted a policy and specific directive that deprives these
Plaintiffs Constitutionally guaranteed rights within the County.

131. These Plaintiffs should be treated uniformly both inside the County and outside
the County under the tenets of the Equal Protection Clause.

132. Here, Plaintiffs have not been treated the same under the laws and policy of the
County. Therefore, the County has violated the Equal Protection Clause.

133. The County has exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority by depriving
the Plaintiffs of these rights.
-14-
 134. Plaintiffs seek equitable, injunctive, and other relief prohibiting the County from
depriving the Plaintiffs of these vested constitutional rights and compensatory damages and costs
accordingly.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Intentional Infringement of Vested Constitutional Rights under Article XVIII of the
Colorado Constitution)

135. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs and allegations as if fully set forth
herein.

136. An actual controversy exists with regard to the legality and the validity of the
County ban on medical marijuana caregiver facilities.

137. In addition, a controversy exists with regard to the County’s actions related to
alleged zoning violations.

138. The rights of all Plaintiffs are adversely affected by the County ban on medical
marijuana caregiver facilities.

139. Specifically, the state constitution provides that “care-givers” and patients shall
have certain rights related to safe and confidential access to medical marijuana.

140. Here, the County has instituted a policy and specific directives that deprive these
Plaintiffs Constitutionally guaranteed rights within the County.

141. In addition, the Defendant has engaged in a subsequent pattern of intentionally

depriving these Plaintiffs of the vested constitutional rights afforded under Article XVIII of the
Colorado Constitution.

142. In doing so, the County has exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority by
depriving the Plaintiffs of these rights.

143. Plaintiffs seek equitable, injunctive, and other relief prohibiting the County from
depriving the Plaintiffs of these vested constitutional rights and consequential damages, attorney
fees and costs accordingly.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Judgment pursuant to the Colorado Declaratory Judgments Act and C.R.C.P.
57 – Zoning, the County’s Ban on Care-Giver Facilities)

144. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs and allegations as if fully set forth
-15-
herein.

145. An actual controversy exists with regard to the legality and the validity of the
County’s formal policies/positions: that the land use code does not permit any caregiver
facilities; and, that Footprints is not consistent with its current zoning.

146. The rights of Plaintiffs are adversely affected by the County’s formal
policies/positions: that the Zoning Resolution does not permit any care-giver/dispensary
facilities; and that Footprints’ use is not consistent with its current zoning.

147. Specifically, the private property rights and constitutional rights of Plaintiffs have
been adversely impacted by the County ban on medical marijuana caregiver facilities.

148. In addition, the rights of all Plaintiffs under Article XVIII, Section 14, have been
adversely impacted by the County ban on medical marijuana caregiver facilities.

149. The County has exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority by adopting the
formal policies/positions: that the Zoning Resolution does not permit any care-giver/dispensary
facilities; and that Footprints’ use is not consistent with its current zoning.

150. These actions are unlawful and/or unconstitutional.

151. Plaintiffs, therefore, seek declaratory relief: that Footprints’ current zoning is
consistent with its uses and/or that the County cannot raise this zoning issue due to waiver,
laches, and/or estoppel; and that the County cannot maintain its policy/position that no property
within the County limits can currently be used for a care giver facility.

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order Pursuant to C.R.C.P 65
– Zoning, The City’s Ban on Care-Giver Facilities)

152. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs and allegations as if fully set forth
herein.

153. Plaintiffs are caregivers for a large number of patients who rely on medical
marijuana to help manage and treat debilitating and life-threatening symptoms resulting from
several diagnoses. Medical marijuana has dramatically improved the quality of their lives as
individuals living with chronic, progressive, and incurable conditions. Benefits of medical
marijuana include decreased dependency on narcotic therapies and other prescription drugs,
more effective pain management, increased appetite, better quality sleep, decreased nerve pain,
and decreased muscle spasms.

-16-
 154. Denying the Plaintiffs their right to serve these patients, in turn, deprives these
patients of their rights under the Colorado Constitution. This causes an immediate and
irreparable injury that can only be prevented by injunctive relief stopping the enforcement of the
County’s ban and the application of the Zoning Resolution.

155. Plaintiffs are protected by the Colorado Constitution, and are afforded specific
rights thereunder. These rights are being abridged.

156. If not enjoined by the Court, Defendant will continue to implement the County’s
policies and formal positions in derogation of Plaintiffs’ and their patients’ respective rights,
others similarly situated, and qualified medical marijuana patients. Such will impose irreparable
injury on the Plaintiffs and these other persons.

157. Plaintiffs have no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law.

158. The attached affidavits, incorporated herein, verify the immediate and irreparable
harm the ban and the County’s formal policies and positions pose to these Plaintiffs and their
patients.

159. Plaintiffs ask that the Court enter a Preliminary Injunction Order Pursuant to
C.R.C.P 65.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request:

A. That the Court issue a briefing/scheduling/trial Order in this matter (proposed

Order attached hereto);
B. That the Court order the County to certify a copy of the record on review;
C. That the Court Reverse the County’s April 7, 2010 decision and allow for medical
marijuana use at the subject premises;
D. Enter judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor and against Defendant in an expedited manner
pursuant to C.R.C.P. 65 and 57(m);
E. Award Plaintiffs damages and costs pursuant to the constitutional claims set forth
above;
F. Grant Plaintiffs Declaratory Judgment finding that the County’s ban on medical
marijuana caregiver facilities is precluded and preempted by State Law (Article II,
Section 15 and Article II, Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution), and that the
ban is unenforceable;
G. Grant Plaintiffs Declaratory Judgment, finding that the County is equitably
estopped from enforcing the ban with respect to the Plaintiffs here and that the
Plaintiffs’ rights had vested pre-moratorium;

-17-
 H. Grant Plaintiffs Declaratory Judgment finding that the Defendant’s Ban on
Medical Marijuana Caregiver facilities is in violation of C.R.S. §38-1-101(3)(a));
I. Grant Plaintiffs Declaratory Judgment finding that the County’s ban on medical
marijuana caregiver facilities constitutes a total ban of all such uses within the
County;
J. Find that the County’s ban on medical marijuana caregiver facilities has deprived
Plaintiffs of their vested constitutional rights under Article XVIII, Section 14 of
the Colorado Constitution without due process of law;
K. Find that the County’s ban on medical marijuana caregiver facilities has violated
the equal protection rights of Plaintiffs;
L. Determine that the Defendant has affected a regulatory taking against Plaintiffs in
violation of Colorado Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 14, and award
appropriate relief;
M. Enter a temporary and permanent injunction ordering the Defendant, and all those
acting in concert with them, to cease and desist from enforcement of the ban and
the County’s current zoning policy;
N. Grant the Plaintiffs Declaratory Judgment finding: that Footprints’ current zoning
is consistent with allowed uses and/or that the County cannot raise this zoning
issue due to waiver, laches, and/or estoppel; and that, with respect to the
Plaintiffs, that the County cannot maintain its position that no property within the
County limits can currently be used for a caregiver facility;
O. That the Court declare whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to its costs and attorney
fees associated with this action; and,
P. That the Court enter such other and further relief as the Court deems just and fair.

RESERVATION OF RIGHT

Plaintiffs expressly reserve and preserve their ability to amend this Complaint when its
counsel has had an opportunity to review the certified record in this matter.

Dated: May 6, 2010

By: /s/ Robert T. Hoban

Robert T. Hoban, Reg. # 33151

By:__/s/ Lauren C. Davis________

Lauren C. Davis, Reg. #34510

-18-