5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

01i'28/2010 16:03 + ERIGGS M110RGAN MPLS 1 PAGE 04106 BRIGGS nrvv MORGAN Rebecca I-laug Ja~uaxy 28, 2010 Page 3 parties' 2003 Host Community Agreement would otb,erwise ixnpropexly rexa.dex City's "cooperation" obligation moot. There is, in any event, no such buffer xequixe~,er~t i;t~ either Chapter 30 or Chapter 58 of the City Code. And ERL can satisfy Minn. R. 7035.2815's 200-foot buffer through its arrangements with the adjacent landowner. Moreover, City already had its opportunity to identify its objections to and concerns with ERL`s 73.4-acre landfill expansion, includix>.g the 13.4-acre portion of the expax~sioz~. And City's sole objection - i.e., lack of SWF - zelated just to the 60 acres of the expansion on the 108.8-acre 5DA property, not the 13.4 acres of the expansion on the existing 137.4-acre Landfill property. Regarding City's ro ose CUP and. License amendments, ERL has the same two objections. ERL objects to the changes to ¶ 4 (29) ("Cell 17"). ERL already has an appxoved construction plan for ¶ 4 (29). ERL also objects to the changes to ¶ 4 (31) ("End Use Plan"). ERL has a~a appxoved end use plaza, and ERL's willingness to accept as an end use plan "passive recreational use" was limited to its applicadoz~ 1'ox its 73.4-acre landfill expansion. For the same reason, ERL similarly objects to City's proposed CUP ¶ 3 ("bU,ffer zone/screening") and its insistence that an "end use plan ... be submitted for appxvval by Aecexx~bex 31, 2011 by the City," together with City's apparent attempt through its PID numbers to extend the "buffer 2o;n.e" outside of the established 200 ;feet. 1?finally, City has argued, to the Court that the record fox judicial review of City's decision- making is lixo.ited to ozaly those records ~ including City's own records! - tv which ERL speeiixeally submits or references. Accordingly, ERL incvxpoxates izzto its applieatioxa all of the briefing and exhibits which have heretofore been subzzkitted to the Court in ERL I and. ERL II, as well as all of r~,e doeu~ents and records which City produced per ERL's data practices act requests. W. ,tl~a. Abed. Ctr., 140 F.3d 1140, 1142 (8th Ciz. 1998); Bates v. Long ,Island .R..R. Co., 997 F.2d 1028, 1037 (2d Cir. 1993). Tudicial estoppel is irxvolced "to protect the integrity of the judicial process frorn a party who plays fast and loose with the courts." Prof t, 591 N.W.2d at 462; ,F,Iossaini, 140 F.3d at 1143. The purposes of the doctrine of judicial estoppel axe to preserve judicial integrity by avoiding tlxe zisl~ of ineozasistezat xesults i~ two proceedings. Flossaini, 140 1~.3d at 1142; Simon v. Safelite GZass Coup., 128 F.3d 68, 71 (2d Cir. 1997). "[A]bsent any good explanation, a party should, not be allowed to gain an advantage b}~ litigatioza ozz oz~e theory, and then seek an inconsistex>.t advantage by pursuing art incompatible theory." 18 C. Wright, A. l~lillex & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4477 at 782. This approach focuses "directly ozt the risl~ of iztconsisteztt xesults and the perceived unseemliness of a litigant',s conduct." Id. at 781.