AURORA, Colo. -- The city of Aurora's pit bull ban will now be challenged in federal court.

A district court judge cleared the way for the courtroom drama, which is scheduled for Aug. 25.

The lawsuit, filed by the American Canine Foundation, alleges there is no statistical proof that the ban enhances public safety.

"There's no evidence at all that any breed of dog is more vicious than any other breed of dog," said Sonya Dias, who filed a similar suit against the city of Denver. Her suit was later dismissed.

Aurora city attorney Charlie Richardson said the city is not taking this lightly.

He said Aurora looks forward to proving, through proper evidence and testimony, that pit bulls represent an enhanced threat.

In a partial summary judgment order dated May 29, Colorado District Judge Wiley Daniel responded to five separate claims filed against the city of Aurora by Florence Vianzon and the American Canine Foundation.

In the order, Daniel found reason to hear arguments for two of the plaintiffs' five claims against the city, specifically that the current ban does not have a legitimate purpose and that it fails to properly compensate an owner for "property seized."

"We didn't expect to get all our constitutional challenges heard, but we did expect to get some of them heard," said Glen Bui, vice president of the Seattle-based ACF. Though Daniel gave summary judgment denying several claims -- including that the current ban is overly vague and that it violates state commerce laws and doctrines of separation of state powers -- Bui said the judge's decision addresses the heart of the issue.

"The city's own statistical database proves that using a ban on breeds is not protecting the public," Bui said. "The database shows us that the problems are an overall dog problem. There is nowhere in the country where it's been proven that a breed-specific ordinance has actually worked to protect the public."

In his summary, Daniels wrote that while other cities with similar bans have had to show a direct relationship between pit bulls and a threat to public safety, Aurora relied largely on legal precedents.

"Unlike the above referenced cases, no evidence or facts have been presented as to why the Aurora city council believed that the ordinance was necessary to protect the safety of its residents," Daniels wrote. "(The) defendant presented no evidence to support its argument that the ordinance was rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose."