Laserfiche WebLink
Division after the Board had announced that testimony was closed, and (2) <br />circumstances of the notice and hearing regarding Plaintiff's Petition for <br />Reconsideration. Based on its allegations, Plaintiff requests this Court to <br />declare both the Board's August 11 Order and the Board's decision on <br />Plaintiff s Petition for Reconsideration null and void and that a new hearing <br />is required. <br />4. The APA provides Plaintiff with adequate remedies. Therefore, the <br />provisions regarding a declaratory judgment are inapplicable. See Envirotest <br />Sys., Corp., v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, 109 P.3d 142 (Colo. 2005) (where <br />the APA provides a claimant with adequate remedies, the provisions of <br />C.R.C.P. 57 are inapplicable). The APA specifically allows for declaratory <br />and injunctive relief as part of the APA review. § 24-4-106(7), C.R.S. <br />(2010); Jeffrey v. Colo. State Dep't of Soc. Servs., 599 P.2d 874 (Colo. <br />1979). Accordingly, the extraordinary provisions for a declaratory judgment <br />are not available. Purcell v. Colo. Div. of Gaming, 919 P.2d 905 (Colo. <br />App. 1996). Therefore, the Board and Division request that this Court <br />dismiss Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief. <br />III. Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief is moot <br />5. In its Fourth Claim for Relief, Plaintiff requests injunctive relief to enjoin <br />the Division from pursuing actions based on the Division's May 2010 Notice <br />of Reason to Believe a Violation Exists, the Board's August 11 Order, and <br />the Division's September 16 Notice. Plaintiff further requests that the Board <br />be enjoined from hearing argument by the Division at any future meetings <br />concerning any alleged failure of Plaintiff to comply with the Board's <br />August 11 Order. (Compl. ¶ 74). <br />6. Plaintiff never obtained an injunction from this Court based on its Fourth <br />Claim for Relief. The actions Plaintiff sought to enjoin have already <br />occurred. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief is moot and <br />should be dismissed. <br />7. Courts must confine their exercise of jurisdiction to cases that present a live <br />case or controversy. Davidson v. Comm. for Gail Schoettler, Inc., 24 P.3d <br />621 (Colo. 2001). A case is moot when the court's ruling would have no <br />practical legal effect. Id; People In the Interest of L.O.L, 197 P.3d 291 <br />3