DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER

STATE OF COLORADO

1437 Bannock Street
Denver, CO 80202

COURT USE ONLY
Plaintiff(s): Damian Stone

Defendant(s): City and County of Denver and Lauri
Dannemiller, Executive Director of the
Department of Parks and Recreation
Attorney/Pro Se:

Damian S. Stone, Reg. No. 34587
The Law Office of Damian Stone, P.C.
3570 E. 12th Avenue, Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80206
Telephone: 720-684-4371

Case No.: 2014CV32366
Div./Ctrm: 424
PLAINTIFF DAMIAN STONES SECOND AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Damian Stone (Plaintiff), attorney of record, states as follows:
PARTIES JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff Damian Stone, 3570 E. 12
th
Avenue, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80206,
is a resident of Denver County.
2. Defendant City and County of Denver, City and County Building, 1437 Bannock
St., Rm. 350, Denver, CO 80202, operating through the Department of Parks and Recreation
(Denver Parks), 201 West Colfax Ave., Dept. 601, Denver, Colorado 80202, is considered a
resident of Denver County.
3. Defendant Lauri Dannemiller, Executive Director, Department of Parks and
Recreation, is a resident of Denver County.
DATE FILED: July 31, 2014 11:27 PM
FILING ID: 1FCDF22F1E513
CASE NUMBER: 2014CV32366
2
4. The parties reside in Denver. The actions that form the basis of this Complaint
were committed in Denver County. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98, venue for an injunction to stay
proceeding is proper in the county where the suit is pending. Thus, venue is proper.
5. Plaintiff has submitted a question of law for determination by this Court, which
includes the interpretation of a statute and the constitutionality of the regulations that Defendants
seek to enforce. Thus, jurisdiction is proper.
6. Also, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), Plaintiff may seek relief from the district
court 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: Thus, jurisdiction is proper.
7. Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief pursuant to 13-
51-101 et. seq., C.R.C.P. 57, and C.R.C.P. 65 and all necessary parties are before the Court.
FACTS
8. Lauri Dannemiller and Denver Parks illegally passed a law and regulations that
makes it unlawful for families, children, or other individuals to participate in impromptu casual
drop-in sporting activities at Washington Park.
9. For example, on May 24, 2014, Park Ranger Wells stopped a family of four from
playing a soccer game at Washington Park. The attached photograph shows a mother and father
playing soccer at Washington Park with their two young children. (Photograph, Exhibit 1.)
10. The next photograph shows Park Ranger Wells shutting down this family game
because the family did not have a permit to play a casual family soccer game at Washington
Park. (Photograph, Exhibit 2.)
11. On the same day, Damian Stone went to Washington Park to engage in casual
drop-in volleyball with friends and new acquaintances. Upon arrival, Mr. Stone and five other
individuals began to play a game of volleyball.
12. Park Ranger Wells, however, issued a Citation-Notice of Violation against
Mr. Stone that asserted a $100.00 fine for doing nothing more than playing a game of volleyball
with friends. (Citation, Ex. 3.)
13. Ms. Dannemiller and Denver Parks claimed to have issued the Citation-Notice of
Violation under Denver Municipal Code 39-4. (Citation, Ex. 3.) In reality, however, Ms.
Dannemiller and Denver Parks bowed under the pressure of a small number of influential
residents living around Washington Park who do not want to share Washington Park with the
other Denver residents who pay taxes for the maintenance and upkeep of the Park.
3
14. Ms. Dannemiller and Denver Parks then issued a Permitting Rule (Permitting
Rule). (Permitting Rule, Ex. 4.) Defendants asserted that 39-4 provided them with the
authority to issue citations for the Permitting Rule.
15. Under the Permitting Rule, Ms. Dannemiller and Denver Parks claimed to have
the authority to regulate Team Sports Activity including casual/drop-in sports like family
soccer, volleyball, corn hole, badminton, or any other sporting activity involving more than
three (3) persons. (Permitting Rule, Ex. 4.)
16. Denver Municipal Code 39-16, however, excludes casual or spontaneous
(pick-up) games from the definition of Sports Activities. (Section 39-16, Ex. 5.) Further,
Regulations 14.1 of Denver Parks Use Rules also excludes casual or spontaneous (pick-up)
games, unscheduled games, unorganized teams, and unorganized groups from the inclusion in
the definition of Team Sport Activity. (Use Regulations 14.1, Ex. 5.)
17. Thus, Ms. Dannemiller and Denver Parks did not have the authority or power to
regulate casual or spontaneous (pick-up) games such as family soccer games, drop-in
volleyball, or other unorganized sports.
18. Instead, pursuant to Denver Municipal Code 2-92 thru 96 (Section 2, Exhibit 7)
and 39-2, Ms. Dannemiller and Denver Parks had to go through the notice and public hearing
procedure to amend the definition of Sports Activities and Team Sport Activity to include
casual or spontaneous pick-up games such as a family soccer game, volleyball, or the like.
19. In addition, Lauri Dannemiller and Denver Parks issued a Second Permitting
Rule. (Second Permitting Rule, Ex. 4.1.) The Second Permitting Rule also seeks to regulate
casual drop-in volleyball even though the language in Denver Municipal Code 39-16 and
Denver Parks Use Regulations 14.1 prohibit Denver Parks from having the authority to regulate
casual or spontaneous (pick-up) games or unscheduled games, unorganized teams, and
unorganized groups from the inclusion in the definition of Team Sport Activity. (Section 39-
16, Ex. 5; Use Regulations 14.1, Ex. 5.) The same arguments applicable to the Permitting Rule
are equally applicable to the Second Permitting Rule.
20. The Second Permitting Rule also again changed and amended the Team Sport
Activity to again include casual or spontaneous pick-up games such as a family soccer game,
volleyball, or the like.
21. Finally, the Second Permitting Rule threatens volleyball players with a criminal
arrest if they engage in a drop-in volleyball game at a public park. The Second Permitting Rule
also singles out volleyball players and applies disparate and distinct permitting requirements for
volleyball players versus other similarly situated people. (Second Permitting Rule, Ex. 4.1.)
22. Thus, Lauri Dannemiller and Denver Parks are treating a group of people,
volleyball players, differently than other similarly situated individuals engaged in similar sports.
4
This amounts to an arbitrary and unreasonable action and violates the equal protection and due
process clauses of the United State Constitution and the Colorado Constitution.
23. The Equal Protection clause seeks to ensure that any classifications the law
makes are made without respect to person, that like cases are treated alike, that those who
appear similarly situated are not treated differently.
24. Based on this disparate treatment, Lauri Dannemillers and Denver Parks Second
Permitting Rule have also violated the equal protection clause and due process clause. In
addition, if the Denver Police Department were to arrest someone for a violation of the
Permitting Rule, the arrest would be constitutionally infirm.
25. As Ms. Dannemiller and Denver Parks knew that the residents of Denver would
object to requiring families and friends to obtain permits to play casual sports at Washington
Park, Ms. Dannemiller and Denver Parks ignored the law and illegally created the Permitting
Rule.
26. To legally change the Denver Parks Rules and Regulations, Ms. Dannemiller and
Denver Parks had to adhere to the rule making and notice requirements. This would have
required Ms. Dannemiller and Denver Parks to give notice to Denver residents of the proposed
regulations. After giving proper notice to the community, Ms. Dannemiller and Denver Parks
would then have to hold a public hearing where Denver residents could express their opinions
regarding the proposed regulations.
27. This process guarantees Mr. Stone and the residents of Denver constitutional due
process and their rights to participate in the formulation of the rules and regulations that impact
all of our lives.
28. Ms. Dannemiller and Denver Parks, however, knew that the majority of Denver
residents would object to the regulation of family soccer games and other casual sports like drop-
in volleyball.
29. Consequently, Ms. Dannemiller and Denver Parks decided to illegally change the
definition of Team Sport Activity located in Denver Municipal Code 39-16 (Exhibit 5) and
Denver Parks Use Regulations 14.1 (Exhibit 6) by issuing the Permitting Rule and Second
Permitting Rule that changed the definition to include sporting activities that involved more
than three (3) persons or involve casual, unorganized, drop-in sports like volleyball and similar
sports. (Permitting Rule, Ex. 4.)
30. Even though the Permitting Rules makes a specific reference that Team Sporting
Activity will have the same meaning as set forth in Section 14.1 (which excludes casual or
spontaneous (pick-up) games) (Permitting Rule, Ex. 4), the Permitting Rules expanded the
definition of Team Sporting Activity to include sporting activities that involved more than
three (3) persons regardless of whether they are casual or spontaneous pick-up games. Id.
5
31. In this case, Defendants issued a citation to Damian Stone for engaging in the
horrible crime of playing a pick-up volleyball game in Washington Park. The citation asserted a
$100 fine that is due within (30) days. (Citation, Ex. 3.) In addition, Damian Stone has been
threatened with criminal prosecution if he engages in another drop-in volleyball game in
Washington Park. (Second Permitting Rule, Ex. 4.1.)
32. Defendants, however, did not have the authority to regulate unorganized, casual,
drop-in volleyball through the Permitting Rule of Second Permitting Rule because Defendants
never went through the notice and hearing process required for the passage or amendment of the
rules and regulations.
33. Thus, Ms. Dannemiller and Denver Parks abused their discretion and exceeded
their jurisdiction and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy otherwise provided by law.
34. Ms. Dannemiller and Denver Parks have also exercised judicial or quasi-judicial
functions for all times relevant to the complaint.
CAUSES OF ACTION

(Declaratory Judgment)
(Injunctive Relief)
(Determination of a Question of Law)

35. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the above paragraphs by this reference as if each
paragraph was set forth herein in its entirety.

36. The Defendants exceeded their jurisdiction and abused their discretion is enacting
the Permitting Rule and issuing the Citation and issuing the Second Permitting Rule.
Defendants actions were arbitrary and capricious, a denial of a statutory right, contrary to a
constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, power, privilege, or immunity, in
excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, or limitations, and not in accord with the
procedural limitations contained in the Denver Municipal Code. This amounts to an abuse and
clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

37. Defendants violated the provisions of the Denver Municipal Code and Denver
Parks Use Regulation and the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. and Colorado
Constitutions.

38. Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment pursuant to 13-51-101 et. seq. and
C.R.C.P. 57 that Lauri Dannemiller and Denver Parks illegally changed the Denver Municipal
Code and Denver Parks Use Regulations without complying with the notice and hearing
requirements contained in the those regulations.
39. Thus, Plaintiff requests a determination that Permitting Rule is unconstitutional
and violates due process and equal protection. In addition, Defendants actions in issuing the
6
Permitting Rule and Second Permitting Rule are beyond Denver Parks statutory jurisdiction and
authority.
40. Through the issuance of the Permitting Rule, the Citation, and the Second
Permitting Rule, Lauri Dannemiller and Denver Parks have caused Damian Stone irreparable
injury by barring him from engaging in casual drop-in sporting activities at Washington Park and
threatening him with criminal prosecution if he plays drop-in volleyball in a public park.
41. There is no certain pecuniary standard for the measurement of the damage to
Mr. Stone. Thus, Mr. Stone will never be adequately compensated for the injuries that he has
sustained due to Lauri Dannemillers and Denver Parks illegal actions.
42. The continuing violation of Mr. Stones statutory and constitutional rights amount
to irreparable harms, which a monetary award cannot compensate or quantify. Absent the
intervention by the courts, there is no legal remedy that provides speedy, complete, and adequate
relief to Mr. Stone.
43. All necessary parties under C.R.C.P. 57(j) are before the Court.
44. Plaintiff prays for declaratory relief from the Court that states the rights and
liabilities of the Parties for the issues outlined in the prior Paragraphs. Plaintiffs seek a
declaration that (1) Lauri Dannemillers and Denver Parks issuance of the Permitting Rule and
Second Permitting Rule were unlawful and beyond the statutory and constitutional authority of
Denver Parks and Lauri Dannemiller; (2) that the unlawful Citation is quashed and invalidated;
(3) that Defendants abused their discretion and authority; and (4) Denver Parks is enjoined from
enforcing the Permitting Rule or Second Permitting Rule.
DAMAGES
45. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the above paragraphs by this reference as if each
paragraph was set forth herein in its entirety.
46. Plaintiff has suffered all damages allowable by law.
47. Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees and costs.

7
DATED: July 29, 2014.

Plaintiff



S/ Damian Stone

Damian S. Stone, Reg. No. 34587
3570 E. 12th Avenue, Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80206
Telephone: (720) 684-4371


Attorney for Plaintiff
Filed electronically. See C.R.C.P. 121 1-26. Original in file.