5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

81/28/2818 16: b3 + IiKIGGS t+1UKGAN 1+1PLS 1 PAGE b3/86 E3RIGGS AND MORCAN Rebecca Haug .Tanuary 28, 2010 Page 2 City denied 1r12L's requested 73.4-acre landfill expansion for the sole reason that the 108.8-acre SpA property 'was not withixl tYie SWP. ERL has thus argued to the Court in E,RL .I.t that City az'bitrarily denied the 13.4-acre portion of ERL's requested e~patision oxa the existing 137.4-acre landfll property because it is entirely within the SWF and thereby unaffected by City's one basis for denial. Unable to substantively defend the axbit~raxiness of its denial as to the 13.4-acre area, City pxoceduxally argued tlxat ERL ziever properly applied for just this lesser included, portion of the full expansion request. Reversing its earlier insistence on on1V "coxisidex[ing]" BL's lesser included 13.4-acre landfill e~paxlsion with the full expansion request, City now argues that E1~L must submit a separate application for the 13.4-acre expansion. City S.J. Opp. Br. at 11-12. City even specifically encourages EIZL to apply for its 13.4-acre landfill expansion "as part of ...the [parties') process of discussing conditions for renewal of the Landfill's current CUl' and License.f' ,Id. Tellingly, City's argument ignores the Minnesota Supxelrie Court's recent rejection of its contention that it was obligated to approve of that portion of ERI.'s request which satisf ed 'its one stated xeasozi for denying the request. Breza v. City of ~innet~~istu, 725 N.W.2d 106, l l4 (Niizin. 2006). Per City's invitaty,on, ERL hereby requests (without waiving its pending applications before the Court) the necessary CUP axed License arriendments to authorize its zxliXxaxxg/landfill expansion within the 13.4-acre axes, as described above axed shown on the attached diagram. There will be xio waste disx~Qsal outside of either (1) the e~.isting 137.4-acre landf 11 property ox (2) the approved SWF as it is currently construed by City. ,lend 'Tiller, the adjacent landowxier to the south, liar riot only agreed to accept arty adverse impacts associated with E12T,'s requested expansion but also to sell to ERL the northern-most 200-foot strip of the 108.8-acre SD.A. property. As such, the inuxiediately adjacent property to the south will be fully protected as to adverse irxipaets and land value. Given its prior repeated representations to the Couz~t,~ City c~ not in good faith claizzi. that ERL is barred by City Code or other regulatory requixeznents froze "expand[ing] :.. on the Landfill property." City is bound by its repxesentatiozis to the Court.i Such a construction of the ~ Stateznezxts contained in a party's pleadizzgs axe bizlding on that party, and they .uCe considered judicial admissions. .~nudser~ v. United States, 254 1~.3d 747, 752 (8th Cix. 2001); In re Cra~wfo~'d, 274 B.R. 798, 804-OS (Bankr. 8th Cir. 2002); Bellefonte ,Reir~suz•ance Co, v. ,f(rgonaut Psis. Co., 757 F.2d 523, 528 (2d Cir. 1985); ,Postscript Enters. v. City of Bridgeton, 905 k'.2d 223, 227-28 ($th Cir. 1990) (treating statements by parties made in briefs as judicial adzrii.ssion). "Judicial efficiency demands that a party riot be allowed to controvert what i,t has already unequivocally told a court by the xxxost foxxxial acid considered nrleans possible." Knudsen, 254 F.3d at 752 (quoting Soo .Line ,IZ..R. Co. v. St. Louis Sw..Ry. Co., 125 F.3d 481, 4S3 (7th Cir. 1997)). And the doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a party from taking ineonsisteiat positions in the saxx~.e or related litigatiozi. State v, Profit, 591 N.~~J,2d 451, 462 (Minn. 1999); I~ossaini v.