DISTRICT COURT, DENVER COUNTY, COLORADO

1437 Bannock Street

Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 606-2300

Plaintiff: BEACON NETWORK SCHOOLS

v.

Defendant: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL

DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
DENVER, and SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE CITY
AND COUNTY OF DENVER ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Case No. 2023-CV-________

Heather Carson Perkins, #30168
Christopher J. Casolaro, #50693 Division _____
Andrew J. Ball, #51238
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
1144 15th Street, Suite 3400
Denver, Colorado 80202
Phone Number: 303-607-3500
Fax Number: 303-607-3600
heather.perkins@faegredrinker.com
christopher.casolaro@faegredrinker.com
andrew.ball@faegredrinker.com

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff Beacon Network Schools (“BNS”), through its undersigned counsel, moves for a

Temporary Restraining Order pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure

barring Defendants Board of Education of School District No. 1 (“Board”) and School District

No. 1 in the City and County of Denver (“District”) from taking any action in furtherance of the

Board’s April 10, 2023 revocation of the Beacon Network Schools Innovation Zone (“Beacon

Zone”) innovation status, including but not limited to requiring Grant Beacon and Kepner

Beacon Middle Schools to revise their innovation plans to remove references to BNS and the
Beacon Zone and resubmit those innovation plans for Board review. In support of this motion,

BNS states as follows:

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL

BNS brings this Motion for Temporary Restraining Order without notice to Defendants.

However, counsel for BNS certifies that after filing it will take immediate steps to notify and

serve Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

Colorado’s adoption of the Innovation Schools Act (“ISA”) in 2008 ushered in a new era

of public education in the state. The ISA encouraged Colorado public schools and districts to

adopt innovative and tailor-made educational strategies, putting the focus on student success and

community involvement. In the years that followed the passage of the ISA, innovation flourished

in Denver leading to many innovation schools and several “innovation zones”—collections of

innovation schools that work together to develop cross-school innovations. Some of those

innovation zones also developed and relied on third-party non-profit organizations—like BNS—

to organize, fund, and operate the innovation zones. Local school boards and districts—like

Defendants—were partners all along the way. Indeed, the Board expressly authorized BNS’s role

and structure as the organizer and operator of the Beacon Zone.

Despite that history of partnership, the Board voted on April 10, 2023, to revoke the

Beacon Zone’s innovation status. But the Board’s revocation decision directly contravened the

ISA which—for its broad grant of discretion when it comes to issues of granting innovation

status—provides extremely limited grounds for revoking that status. The only ground for

revoking an innovation zone’s innovation status is a finding that academic performance is not

2
improving at a sufficient rate at one or more of the innovation zone’s member schools. The

Board’s revocation of BNS went far beyond the limited basis allowed by the ISA.

Rather than examine the Beacon Zone’s academic performance, the Board homed in on what it

claimed were flaws in the Beacon Zone’s organizational structure. And the little consideration

the Board did do of the Beacon Zone’s academic performance was based on an irredeemably

flawed analysis.

Unfortunately, the Board took its violation of the ISA a step further, ordering the District

to take immediate steps to effectuate its vote. Most critically, the District has ordered BNS’s

member schools Grant Beacon Middle School (“Grant Beacon”) and Kepner Beacon Middle

School (“Kepner Beacon”) revise and resubmit to the District their individual school innovation

plans to remove all references to BNS and the Beacon Zone no later than Wednesday, May 10.

Those revisions would effectively extinguish the Beacon Zone and—by extension—BNS, whose

sole purpose is to support and operate the Beacon Zone.

Accordingly, BNS brings this motion for temporary restraining order to bar the District’s

insistence that Grant Beacon and Kepner Beacon revise and resubmit their individual school

innovation plans while this Court considers BNS’s motion for preliminary injunction.1

ARGUMENT

This Court should issue a temporary restraining order barring the Board and the District

from requiring Grant Beacon and/or Kepner Beacon to revise and resubmit their individual

school innovation plans to remove all references to BNS and/or the Beacon Zone.

1
This motion is concerned with a targeted threat of irreparable harm, while BNS’s motion for
preliminary injunction seeks seeking lengthier relief from a broader scope of irreparable harms.

3
 A temporary restraining order is justified if the moving party faces immediate and

irreparable harm. Colo. R. Civ. P. 65(b); see also City of Golden v. Simpson, 83 P.3d 87, 96

(Colo. 2004) (contrasting a temporary restraining order with longer-lasting preliminary

injunctions which require satisfying the six factors identified in Rathke v. MacFarlane, 648 P.2d

648, 653-54 (Colo. 1982)).

I. The District’s Insistence that Grant Beacon and Kepner Beacon Revise and
Resubmit their Innovation Plans will Cause BNS Immediate and Irreparable Harm.

Irreparable harm is harm that is certain and imminent and for which money is not an

adequate remedy. Gitlitz v. Bellock, 171 P.3d 1274, 1279 (Colo. App. 2007). Colorado courts

have recognized that harm that will wrest control from or eliminate a party’s ability to operate

their organization amounts to irreparable harm. See, e.g., Gitlitz, 171 P.3d at 1279; see also Steak

n Shake Enterprises, Inc. v. Globex Co., LLC, No. 13-cv-01751-RM-CBS, 2013 WL 4237768, at

*2-3 (D. Colo. Aug. 14, 2013) (evaluating request for temporary restraining order under Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure). That is precisely the threat BNS faces here from the District’s

insistence that Grant Beacon and Kepner Beacon revise and resubmit their individual innovation

plans to remove all references to BNS or the Beacon Zone.

The Beacon Zone operates only because it and its member schools agree to work

collaboratively to make the zone functional. Lewis Decl. ¶ 3. This framework of mutual

collaboration is established through the Beacon Zone’s Innovation Plan (“Plan”)—which makes

clear that the Beacon Zone includes Grant Beacon and Kepner Beacon Middle Schools—and

through those schools’ separate, school-level innovation plans—which recognize their role

within the Beacon Zone. Id. Remove one of those links, and the Beacon Zone ceases to function.

Id.

4
 Unfortunately, that is precisely what the District seeks here through its insistence that

Grant Beacon and Kepner Beacon resubmit by Wednesday, May 10, 2023, revised school-level

innovation plans without references to BNS and/or the Beacon Zone. Lewis Decl. ¶¶ 10-14.

Thus, if this motion is not granted, the Beacon Zone is at great risk that it will lose its members,

effectively ending the zone’s operations and BNS’s sole purpose for existence. Lewis Decl. ¶ 12.

Indeed, after Grant Beacon and Kepner Beacon revise their plans to leave the zone, BNS will

have no basis for fundraising and no need for its employees or Board of Directors. See id. That

harm is irreparable since no amount of money would be able to restore BNS’s role as the

operator and organizer of the Beacon Zone. See Steak n Shake, 2013 WL 4237768, at *2-3.

To make matters worse, that harm is immediate. Once Grant Beacon and Kepner Beacon

resubmit their individual school-level innovation plans, the Beacon Zone will lose its substance

even if BNS eventually prevails in this lawsuit. Lewis Decl. ¶¶ 12, But what good is a reinstated

Beacon Zone if its members have been stripped away? So, while May 10, 2023, is only the

deadline for Grant Beacon and Kepner Beacon to resubmit their proposed revised plans, it is the

critical date since it will lead to the Board’s planned vote on those plans on June 8, 2023, and,

sometime between May 10, 2023, and before June 8, 2023, the stakeholder approval vote that

§ 22-32.5-110(1)(a) of the ISA requires. It will be a significant challenge to undo the District’s

mandated revisions after that stakeholder vote due to confusion in the community, even if this

Court later bars the Board’s June 8, 2023 approval vote. Lewis Decl. ¶ 13.

The Beacon Zone is thus facing that is both irreparable—because it will outright

eliminate BNS and the Beacon Zone—and immediate—because the May 10, 2023 resubmission

deadline is the catalyst for key stakeholder and Board votes that will harm the Beacon Zone.

5
 BNS is thus entitled to a temporary restraining order barring the District from requiring

that Grant Beacon and Kepner Beacon resubmit school-level innovation plans that remove all

references to the Beacon Zone and/or BNS.

II. BNS has Established that it is Entitled to Longer-Term Relief through a

Preliminary Injunction.

Colorado law permits a preliminary injunction to prevent further harm or preserve the

status quo while the merits of a proceeding unfold. See Rathke v. MacFarlane, 648 P.2d 648,

653-54 (Colo. 1982). A preliminary injunction is appropriate when the moving party can

establish: (1) a reasonable probability of success on the merits; (2) the danger of real, immediate

and irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction; (3) the lack of a plain, speedy, and

adequate remedy at law; (4) that the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest;

(5) that the balance of the equities favors the preliminary injunction; and (6) the preliminary

injunction will preserve the status quo pending a trial on the merits.

As BNS explained in its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, each of these factors weighs

in favor of a preliminary injunction here:

• BNS has a reasonable probability of success on the merits of its claims because
the Board based its revocation decision on an improper factor—supposed
concerns regarding BNS’s “organizational health” or structure—and because any
concerns regarding academic performance at one member school were inherently
flawed.

• BNS faces irreparable harm because, as explained above, the Board’s

revocation action poses an existential threat to the Beacon Zone and, therefore,
BNS. That threat of irreparable harm goes beyond the immediate threat posed by
the District’s directive that its member schools resubmit revised plans. That harm
cannot be remedied at law.

• BNS’s requested injunction will serve the public interest because it will ensure
that the District and Board comply with the law.

6
 • The equities favor BNS’s requested injunction and it will preserve the status
quo because no harm will flow to the District or Board from the injunction and
because all BNS requests is that this Court preserve the Beacon Zone’s previously
existing status and BNS’s previously existing role.

Accordingly, not only is BNS entitled to an immediate, temporary restraining order, it is

entitled to a more substantial bar on the Board’s and District’s unlawful revocation proceedings

through a preliminary injunction.2

CONCLUSION

This Court should grant this Motion for Temporary Restraining Order because BNS will

suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the District requires that Grant Beacon and Kepner

Beacon submit revised innovation plans to remove references to the Beacon Zone and/or BNS.

Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of May, 2023.

FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

/s/ Heather Carson Perkins

Heather Carson Perkins, #30168
Christopher J. Casolaro, #50693
Andrew J. Ball, #51238

Attorneys for Plaintiff

2
Importantly, BNS is entitled to longer term, preliminary injunctive relief even if this Court
denies this motion for temporary restraining order because, as explained in its preliminary
injunction motion, the irreparable harm BNS seeks relief from in its motion for preliminary
injunction is broader and even more damaging

7
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 3rd day of May, 2023, a true and correct
copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER was filed
and served electronically via the Colorado Courts E-Filing System (CCES) on all counsel of
record.

/s/ Colleen H. Russell

Colleen H. Russell
Legal Administrative Assistant

8
 3. The Beacon Zone operates only because it and its member schools agree to work

collaboratively—through their respective innovation plans—to make the zone work. If either the

Beacon Zone or the member schools decide to walk away, the zone will cease to function.

4. On April 10, 2023, the Board voted to revoke the Beacon Zone’s Innovation

Status.

5. The Board’s decision was based on a flawed analysis of BNS’s and the Beacon

Zone’s organizational structure and health and a flawed review of academic performance at

Kepner Beacon Middle School.

6. It is my belief that the Board’s decision was based primarily on personal enmity

between District personnel, specific Board members, and BNS Executive Director Alex Magaña.

7. The Board reached its decision after spending significant time exclusively with

District Superintendent Dr. Marrero.

8. In contrast, the Board never invited BNS to submit evidence to rebut the District’s

recommendation or to make its case before a neutral decisionmaker.

9. The Board thus failed to entertain evidence and information for and against the

District’s recommendation and prevented BNS from fairly making its case.

10. The Board’s revocation decision is an existential threat to BNS since BNS’s sole

purpose is to support, organize, and operate the Beacon Zone. Without innovation status, BNS

has no corporate purpose and will be forced to wind up its affairs.

11. And the District is taking immediate action to implement the Board’s vote,

considering that the District has ordered Grant Beacon and Kepner Beacon to revise their

2
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,
STATE OF COLORADO
1437 Bannock Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff: BEACON NETWORK SCHOOLS

v.

Defendant: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL

DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
DENVER, and SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE CITY
AND COUNTY OF DENVER. ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲
___________________________

Case No. 2023-CV-____

Division: ____

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Beacon Network Schools’ Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order. Having reviewed the Motion and being informed of the
premises, the Court finds that Plaintiff faces irreparable injury in the form of the disbanding of
the Beacon Zone and the elimination of its sole corporate purpose. No amount of money
damages will restore Plaintiff’s role as the operator of the Beacon Zone.

The Court finds further that notice is not required because of the impending May 10,
2023 school-level innovation plan resubmission deadline and because counsel for Plaintiff has
certified that it has taken immediate steps to notify Defendants of Plaintiff’s motion.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order is GRANTED on this __ day of May, 2023, at ____ Mountain Time, which shall extend
for 14 days from this date, unless extended.

BY THE COURT:

District Court Judge