|
01 ~'2~i X010 16.03 + ER~GGS ~~~iDRGAN Pr1PLS ~ PAGE 0~I06
<br />BR~G~~ ANA n~o~~AN
<br />Rebecca. Haug
<br />~a~ua~y 2~, 20 ~ 0
<br />Page 3
<br />parties' 2003 Host Community Agreement would o~h.erwise z~npl~operiy a.en,deJ. City's
<br />''cooperation" obligation moot, There is, in any event, no such buffet xeclui~e~e~.t ~~, e~~ex
<br />Chapter 30 or Chapter 5~ of the City Code. And. ESL can satisfy Minn, R. 7035,2~15's 200-foot
<br />bu~`f e~ through its a.rran.gements with the adjacent la~dow~er. Mo~eove~, City a~xeady had its
<br />opportunity to identify its objections to and. concerns with FRL`s 7~ .4-acre i~radflli expannsion,
<br />i~cludi~,g the X3.4-acre portion of the e~'pan~zon. And City's sole objcotzpn -- i.~,, ~~.c~ of SwP ~-
<br />telatedjust to the ~0 acres of the expansion on the 148,8~acre 5DA property, nog the 13,4 acres
<br />of the expansion ova the e~istir~~ ~ 3 7.4-acre Landfill property,
<br />~egard.zn~ City's ra osed CUP and. License arn.end,ments, E~~, has the same two
<br />obj ectious. E~ objects to ~c cha~~e~ to ¶ 4 ~29~ ~"Ce~~ ~ 7 "~. ~~~, a~~eady has ~ approved
<br />construction playa for ~ 4 ~~.~~, ERL also objects to the changes to ~ 4 ~3 ~~ ~"end Use Plan"}.
<br />ESL has axa approved en.d use plat, and ESL's wi~li~gness ~o accept ~.s an end ~tse play, "passive
<br />xecreatio~al use'' way ~z~aa~ted to its app~~catso~ fox its 73,4~acre landf ll expansion, For the same
<br />season, ERL similarly objects to Cityas proposed CUP ~ 3 ~"buffer ~one~scree~aing"} a~ad its
<br />insistence that an `~~nd use p~a~... , be submitted foz appzav~, by pece~ber 3 ~, 20~ ~ by the
<br />City," together with City' ~ apparenx ~~empt thrau~h its PAD numbers to extend, t:he "bu'ff'er ~da~.e''
<br />cutsid:e of the establi sued 200 ~ee~.
<br />~'~n~.liy, City h~.s axgu.ed. to the Cou,~t that the record for judic~a~ ~ev~ew off' City's dec~s~o~~
<br />making is limited ~o otXy tb,ose records ~ inc~udin~ City's own records! ~- to which. ESL
<br />5pec~~~ea~~y sub~its or references. Accordingly, F~L incorporates ~~ato its appiic~~~o~ a~Z off' tie
<br />brief ng and exhibits which have herexofoxe beet submitted to the Courtin ERL I ~.nd..~RL II, as
<br />well as ail of ~c docu;~ents and records which City produced Per E~~'s data. pxac~zces ~,ct
<br />xe~uests,
<br />W. ,l~a.l4~ed. Ct~~~,,140 F.3d 1140, 1142 ~~th Cis. i99~~; ~at~s v, Long,~sla~~d ,R.,~. C'a., 9~7 ~',2d
<br />1428, 1437 ~2d Cir. 1993}. Judicial estoppel is i~,vo~ed "to Protect the integrity of the judicial
<br />process from a ply wino plays fast and loose nth the coins," ~t°~~~, 5~1 N.w.2d at 4~2;
<br />~ossai~~i, 140 F,3d at 1143, The purposes of the doctri~.e ofF~udicial estoppel axe to pxeserve
<br />judicial zntegrzty by avoid~tg ~,e ~ls~ a~ l~eQ~slste~t results i~ t~~o proceedings. ~Iossai~~i, ~ 40
<br />~'.3d at ~ X42, Stma~ v. ~SafeZit~ Glass Carp., l2~ ~,3d 6~, 71 ~2d Cir.1997}. "[Absent any good
<br />explanation, a party ~hou2d not be allowed to gai~a an advantage by iz~~atiot at o~,e tb,eary, aid
<br />then seep an inconsistent ad~ratt~age by puxsuitg a~. itcoa~patibZe theory." 18 C, wri~ht, A.
<br />Miller ~ ~= Covp~r, Fcd~ral Practice ~ Procedure § 477 at 7~~. This approach focuses
<br />"directly Qn ~e risk of x~,conslstett results and the perceived unseemliness of a lx~igant",s
<br />conduct," Id, at 78 ~ .
<br />
|