Laserfiche WebLink
Betsy Wergin <br />August 22, 2001 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> Accordingly, the three agency defendants assembled a joint motion for summary judgment, <br />seeking the dismissal of this lawsuit at the outset. We wanted to protect our clients from the burdens <br />and inconveniences of responding to discovery and giving depositions. We also wanted to prevent <br />plaintiffs from using the pendency of this lawsuit as "leverage" to achieve their preferred policy <br />objectives. We insisted that discussion of the merits of station location belongs in the planning <br />process, not in the courts. <br /> <br /> The cooperation among the agency defendants could not have been better. Counsel for each <br />agency made contributions to our brief in support of the motion for summary judgment. However, <br />there is no question that the most important overall contributor to the success of this effort was an <br />individual who was both "client" and "lawyer": Mary Richardson. Mary patiently instructed defense <br />counsel about the esoteric world of commuter rail in Minnesota. The education she provided to us <br />was essential to the development of our legal arguments. I am particularly grateful for her <br />willing-ness to read early drafts of our motion and provide appropriate additions and corrections. <br /> <br /> Our motion had immediate impact, because the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims <br />based on environmental law noncompliance. However, plaintiffs continued to oppose our effort to <br />dismiss the case by emphasizing that the planning agencies were intentionally circumventing the <br />process established by the Legislature for locating commuter rail stations. <br /> <br /> Judge Larson' s order dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims must be viewed as a total victory. <br />Not only did the defendants win on all issues, there is very little content in that opinion which would <br />serve as a consolation prize for the plaintiffs. <br /> <br /> I would be pleased to discuss any aspect of this case in greater detail. Please understand that <br />this victory does not prevent these plaintiffs or others from bringing lawsuits once final decisions <br />have been made, although some of the content of the summary judgment motion might be helpful <br />to defeat any subsequent claims by these plaintiffs. In fact, Judge Larson's opinion will be helpful <br />in any future dispute where it becomes necessary to explain the statutory context of commuter rail <br />planning. <br /> <br />Please feel free to call if you have further questions. <br /> <br />CMG:cap <br /> <br />Very truly yours, <br /> <br />cc: Mark Rossow, LMCIT <br /> <br /> <br />