brief in opposition to motion to dismiss - Colorado Attorney General

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ARGUMENTI. The Standard of ReviewDefendants must satisfy the demanding standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(5) motion:A C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief canbe granted serves as a test of the formal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s complaint. Dorman v.Petrol Aspen, 914 P.2d 909, 911 (Colo.1996). The chief function of a complaint is togive a defendant notice of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject of a plaintiff’slawsuit. Rosenthal v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 908 P.2d 1095, 1100 (Colo.1995). AC.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss is looked upon with disfavor, and a complaintshould not be dismissed unless it appears beyond a doubt that a plaintiff can prove no setof facts in support of her claim which would entitle her to relief. Id.; Dunlap v. Colo.Springs Cablevision, Inc., 829 P.2d 1286, 1291 (Colo.1992). A complaint should not bedismissed for failure to state a claim so long as the plaintiff is entitled to some relief uponany theory of the law. Rosenthal, 908 P.2d at 1099; Dunlap, 829 P.2d at 1290.When reviewing a motion to dismiss under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5), all averments of materialfact must be accepted as true, and all of the allegations in the complaint must be viewedin the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Dorman, 914 P.2d at 911. Furthermore, whenreviewing a motion to dismiss a complaint, the court may only consider matters statedwithin the complaint itself, and may not consider information outside of the confines ofthat pleading. Rosenthal, 908 P.2d at 1099.Public Service Co. of Colo. v. Van Wyk, 27 P.3d 377, 385-386 (Colo. 2001).II.Amendment 23 Does not Preclude Education Clause ClaimsIn 1876, the framers of the Colorado Constitution affirmed the people’s commitment topublic education by mandating the establishment and maintenance of a thorough and uniformsystem of free public schools. Then, as now, thoughtful citizens recognized that publiceducation is the cornerstone of a modern democratic republic. 7 In November 2000, the7In a petition to the Constitutional Convention, a citizen’s group expressed the “belief that free,non-sectarian common schools are essential to the life and perpetuity of our form of government,and constitute the only security for a free, untrammeled ballot . . . .” Proceedings of theConstitutional Convention, at 277.8
electorate, reacting against the debilitating effects of the TABOR Amendment 8 and in order toreverse the persistent failure of the general assembly to provide adequate funding for publiceducation, reaffirmed this commitment by adopting Amendment 23 through the initiativeprocess. 9Now, the state agencies and officers who are principally responsible for fulfilling theseeducational mandates cynically contend that by passing Amendment 23 the people actuallydiminished the Education Clause and obviated the general assembly’s duty to determine andfund an adequate public education. While Amendment 23 indisputably sets a minimum level ofannual increases in funding for public education, there is no justification for arguing that itthereby also defines the amount of funding required to meet the qualitative standards of theEducation Clause.“[A] court’s duty in interpreting a constitutional amendment is to give effect to the willof the people adopting such amendment.” In re Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund, 913 P.2d533, 538 (Colo. 1996) (citation omitted). “To determine intent, courts first examine the languageof the amendment and give words their plain and commonly understood meaning.” Zaner v. Cityof Brighton, 917 P.2d 280, 283 (Colo. 1996) (citations omitted). “When the language of anamendment is plain, its meaning clear, and no absurdity involved, constitutional provisions mustbe declared and enforced as written.” In re Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund, supra(citation omitted).8The “Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights,” COLO. CONST., art. X, §20.9 With respect to the purposes of Amendment 23, See, An Analysis of the 2000 Statewide BallotProposals and Recommendations on Retention of Judges, Res. Pub. No. 475-6, LegislativeCouncil of the Colorado General Assembly (2000) (the Blue Book), at 14-15 (copy attached asExhibit A to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss).9
Page 1 and 2: DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OFD
Page 3 and 4: system of public schools throughout
Page 5 and 6: Amendment 23 was not intended to an
Page 7: evenues they can raise, receive, an
Page 11 and 12: State to fund a thorough and unifor
Page 13 and 14: People v. District Court, 196 Colo.
Page 15 and 16: with an informal foster family.Ther
Page 17: In his concurring opinion, Justice
Page 20 and 21: Implicit are supportive services: (
Page 22 and 23: if the districts lack sufficient fu
Page 26 and 27: judicial power; that the executive
Page 28 and 29: The general assembly can reprioriti
Page 30 and 31: state auditor and treasurer from is
Page 32 and 33: There is nothing fair or just about
Page 34 and 35: Defendants offer revenues raised in
Page 36 and 37: a state must be deemed commensurate
Page 38 and 39: local over state control of instruc
Page 40: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby cert

brief in opposition to motion to dismiss - Colorado Attorney General

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?