Laserfiche WebLink
STATE OF MINNESOTA <br />IN COURT OF APPEALS <br />CASE NO. A10-689 <br />Elk River Landfill, Inc., <br />Respondent, <br />v. <br />City of Elk River, Minnesota, <br />RESPONDENT ELK RIVER <br />LANDFILL INC.'S REPLY <br />MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN <br />SUPPORT OF ITS RULE 127 <br />MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANT <br />CITY OF ELK RIVER, <br />MINNESOTA'S IMPROPER APPEAL <br />Appellant. <br />INTRODUCTION <br />Per its 4/16/10 Statement of the Case at 2-3, City originally argued for this Court's <br />jurisdiction based on the district court's 4/2/10 Order being a "final judgment" - i.e., <br />under Rule 103.03(x). ERL thus moved to dismiss due to this Court's lack of jurisdiction <br />under Rule 103.03(a). Beneath the din of City's barrage of personal attacks against ERL <br />and its counsel, City quietly accepts the two key admissions from City's 4/16/10 <br />Statement of the Case at 2-3 which underlie ERL's 4/21/10 Motion to Dismiss -namely, <br />(1) "[t]he district court did not grant summary judgment for City or for [ERL] on [ERL's] <br />contract claim" and (2) there was "no" "district court entry of a final partial judgment for <br />immediate appeal pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01." Because of its silent <br />concession, City was forced to oppose ERL`s motion to dismiss by adding an entirely <br />new jurisdictional argument that was not included in its 4/16/10 Statement of the Case. <br />Even though City's 4/16/10 Statement of the Case conspicuously omitted an <br />mention of an "injunction" or "injunctive relief," let alone ~ citation to Rule 103.03(b)'s <br />allowance for appeals "from an order which grants, refuses, dissolves or refuses to <br />