Laserfiche WebLink
Plaintiffs' sole focus in the Complaint is on the actions and conduct of WFC, not on the <br />Division's actions. The Complaint fails to raise a single allegation against the Division and even <br />in Claim Two, which are the allegations Plaintiffs' assert against all named parties, Plaintiffs' <br />allegations are only directed to the conduct of WFC. See Complaint at 131, 32 and 33. Even <br />when Plaintiffs discuss the remedy of injunctive relief to compel compliance with the Act, the <br />injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs is against WFC, not against the actions or conduct of the <br />Division. Complaint at 133. Plaintiffs have raised no claim, case, or controversy against the <br />Division. <br />Instead, the Division is named as a party- Defendant in this matter only to the extent that <br />the Court may issue prospective injunctive relief regarding yet -to -be determined future violations <br />of the Act by WFC. Plaintiffs assert that the Division is a necessary party under C.R.S. §34 -33- <br />135(2.5) of the Act should the Court issue injunctive relief for matters within the Division's <br />jurisdiction. However, Plaintiffs misapply C.R.S. §34 -33- 135(2.5) which states "the Board or <br />Office may intervene as a matter of right in any action commenced pursuant to paragraph (a) of <br />subsection (1) of this section to which they are not otherwise a party ". Clearly, §34 -33- 135(2.5) <br />allows the Board or Division to intervene in a civil matter at its discretion. It does not state, as <br />alleged by Plaintiffs, that the Board or Division is a necessary party to all civil actions brought <br />by citizens under the Act. The Division does not believe it is a necessary party, and accordingly <br />seeks dismissal from this matter. <br />Moreover, Plaintiffs have named the Division as a Defendant to 10 CV 367 not to <br />challenge and bring the conduct and actions of the Division before this Court, but as a "catch -all" <br />in case this Court issues an order for prospective injunctive relief regarding speculative future <br />conduct of WFC that may be within the Division's regulatory jurisdiction. Inclusion of the <br />Division in a civil suit in this "catch -all" manner is speculative and vague, at best, improper, and <br />a misuse of process. Plaintiffs cannot simply add the Division to this civil suit without providing <br />some degree of specificity as to the allegations Plaintiffs have against the Division. Moreover, <br />the Division should not be involuntarily included as a Defendant in a civil lawsuit because <br />Plaintiffs believe the Division should be the entity that enforces a yet -to -be issued court order. <br />The Division is not charged with enforcing court orders issued in civil suits. Any court order <br />4 <br />