Cass v. Enciso et al
ORDER. The Court ORDERS as follows: Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 2 ) is DENIED; Plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 34 ) is GRANTED, and the Clerk is directed to docket the proposed Amended Verified Complaint (ECF No. 34-1) as a separate entry; and Defendant's request for an extension (ECF No. 37 ) is DENIED AS MOOT, and her response to the Amended Verified Complaint is due within fourteen days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). By Judge Raymond P. Moore on April 26, 2021. (rvill, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 21-cv-00498-RM-KLM
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction (ECF No. 2). The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order
on March 3, 2021 (ECF. No. 16), but his request for a preliminary injunction remained pending
and has now been fully briefed (ECF Nos. 21, 28, 29). Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to
Amend Verified Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief Under F.R.C.P. 15 (ECF No. 34),
and Defendant has filed a motion seeking an extension of today’s deadline to file an answer or
otherwise respond to the Verified Complaint (ECF No. 37).
Former Defendant Airbnb has been dismissed from this case, and Plaintiff concedes that
his initial request for injunctive relief to prevent Defendant from using his property as an Airbnb
rental is now moot. (ECF No. 28 at 6.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff asserts that injunctive relief is
warranted based on allegations contained in an affidavit attached to his Reply in support of his
motion for a preliminary injunction. However, the Court declines to consider these additional
allegations in the context of evaluating Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. A motion for a
preliminary injunction cannot be a moving target that seeks different relief each time a new
pleading is filed. As originally filed, the motion sought to enjoin the use of Plaintiff’s property
as an Airbnb rental. As briefed, Plaintiff seeks different relief based on new allegations that are
not included in the Verified Complaint. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for a
Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint except to seek
an extension contingent on a ruling on the motion. In the interest of moving this case forward,
the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion and deny Defendant’s as moot.
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 2) is DENIED;
Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED, and the Clerk is directed
to docket the proposed Amended Verified Complaint (ECF No. 34-1) as a separate entry; and
Defendant’s request for an extension (ECF No. 37) is DENIED AS MOOT, and
her response to the Amended Verified Complaint is due within fourteen days. See Fed. R. Civ.
DATED this 26th day of April, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?