Laserfiche WebLink
dissolve, an injunction," City now rests its appeal on Rule 103.03(b), arguing that "[t]he <br />district court's declaratory judgment has the effect of an injunction." 4/28/10 City Opp. <br />Br. at 1 {emphasis added). City's argument is expressly based on the district court's <br />declaratory judgment pronouncement that "'[ERL] is entitled to proceed with its proposed <br />landfill expansion."' Id. (quoting 4/2/10 Order at 32 ~ 3). The threshold problem for <br />City's new jurisdictional argument is that the district court is not authorized under the <br />Minnesota Declaratory Judgments Act to compel City's zoning approvals. And, as <br />successfully argued by City, the district court dismissed ERL's mandamus claim for just <br />such a mandatory injunction. 4/2/10 Order at 22-24, 32 ¶ 2. <br />Regardless, this Court's jurisdiction has to be determined by what the district court <br />actuall did do, not what City speculates "the district court appears to have believed," <br />"likely believed" or "implies." 4/28/10 City Opp. Br. at 13, 11. City obviously wishes to <br />forestall any more rulings from the district court. But, in order to avoid conferring <br />jurisdiction by guesswork, City needs to follow the tried and true course in such <br />situations of asking the district court for (1) a Rule 54.02 amendment to its ruling, (2} a <br />Rule 115.11 request for reconsideration to clarify the order, or (3) some other appropriate <br />relief. <br />2 <br />