|
03/09/2010 16:18 1- BRIGGS MORGAN h1PLS 1 PAGE 48/60
<br />zlot. Id. Zxistead, flee City staff silxiply represealted that tl>,e EItL azxd ~`zlltr had to xeapply
<br />with the full expansion. request. Id.
<br />4. ~UL}C ®A'' C®1~1ST~[JCTTON N(,~ 4: Ambiguities are to be
<br />co>txetxued consistent vvltle its coutr•act obaagations
<br />.Arty arlabiguaty xs to be interpz'sted, where possible, so ae not to conflict wx'lk~ the zoning
<br />body's cox~txectual or other requirtments. See Strauss v, Ginsberg, 218 Minn, 57, 64, l5
<br />~t.W.2d 130, 134 (194q•) ("The zozlxlt~ ordinatace cannot affect the obligatXoxz cxeated by
<br />such rt:strictiplis rln covenant contained srt deed] acid ctumot izx~paix tb.e contractual;
<br />obligationt3 so created").
<br />Even tb,ougb there is no other room fox lazadaYll ex~ausiozl ozi the e~„istizig 137.4-acxe
<br />laztdfill proporty, ~kle City prevjously>•epxesented to Axis Couxe that the peeress' 2003 Frost
<br />Comntuzlity ,A.,gxeeinent's "lzingttttge cleax~y refers to'expansions ... ou_ttxe:Laal.dfill
<br />ro ex ,"' 11o1C to "eapatlsions" ou the 108, 8-acre SJJA propexty. l/A•/10 City EIZL I
<br />Proposed Mexcio a11d Order at 2G-27; 12/17/09 City EI>'L 1' oral a1•g1~i17.e~t_ The City's
<br />judlcza~, adrr>rissiotas would be nousensica>,, al'zxot tfisirt$enu.ous, if (as it now claialas) the
<br />State-rtaazxdatcd 200-foot buffer had to be wi.thizl the SW]~ overlay disl:ricz, tllexeby
<br />barring any "expansions .. , oxa ~e Landfill property." i '),kte Czty's "cooperafon"
<br />obligation under the 2003 lost Community t~.gt-eexxlellxt would also be rend.exed moot by
<br />t Statements opDtalned !tt 3ls3rly's pleadings are blpding On that party, crud they ere eoA191deTefl Judicial admissions,
<br />J~r+udsen v. UnJtsd SYnte,s, 2541z,3d 747, 7S2 (8th Cir• 2001}; I,l :'e Crawford, 274 s:it. 798, 604-05 (13anltr. $tla Cir.
<br />2002); Bad/efn)ttelleins,am?ee Co. v, ~rgonair! InS. Co„ 75717.2d 523, 52$ (2d Cu. 1965)i .PosJscript• Enters. v, City
<br />of ~IYd~P,POn, 905 P.2d 2.23, 227-2$ (8th, Cir. 1990) (treating statemecatS by parties n~ada in briefs as judicial
<br />admission). "Judicial ~;fiiciency demands that a party not bs allowed to controvert what iE hea already tanequivocally
<br />told a court by the most formal and cottsideced means possible." 7~S,utL,e21r, 254 k'.9d at 752 (cluofing S'oo Lima R.IZ.
<br />Co. v St, .Gortis ,Srv. Ry. Co., 125 F.3d a81, A$3 (7th Cir, 1997)). And the doCttin®of judicial estoppel prevents a
<br />parry :Brown ral:lz~g inconsist©nt pos(tfop3 in the Aaitae oxaelated litigation. Shtta v. Piet, 591 N.W,2d 451, 462
<br />(Minn. 1999)s.t~ossatnl v. W. Mo. Med. Ctr., 1401?_3d 1140, l 142 {Si1a CiC. 1998); Daces v 2onglrland.12..1Z Co.,
<br />997 F,2d 1025, 1037 (2d Cir. 1993). Judicial esaoppei is invoked "to ptvteot the integrity of the judicial plrocc9s
<br />atom a patty who plays fast artd iooSe with Ehc courts." Profs, 591 N.W.2,d et 4 ,C2,• ,F.forsafni, 1401?.3d at ] I43. 3'}.te
<br />purposes o£ tlzE doctrine of judicdal esto}~rel ar® tb prasozve judicial integrity uy avoiding the risk of incot-slstent
<br />results in two p>t'pceedimgs. ,T~ossaln~ 1401~.3d at 1142; Svnon v. Safelite Glass Corp, 128 F.3fl 6$, 71(2d. Cir.
<br />1997). "[,A,]bsFatt any good explrurativn, s party should not be allowed to gain an advantage by ]itigatlori ott ono
<br />tlncory, etrd then sewn an inoonaislertt advantage by puz,uing art incompatible tl~tooty." 1$ C. Wnigltc, A.. Miller ds E.
<br />Cooper, $ederat Exactice St Procedure §4477 at 7$2• Shia approach foouses "directly on, lyre tislc of inconsistent
<br />results and rho 1,e~rcoivcd urssecmUness oYa litigant's cotiduet." ,Id, at 761.
<br />•r:~n~aauaoatc~rynppt~cb~sa RFpor~,finer t~J.ao` 3-.25
<br />
|