Laserfiche WebLink
ARGUMENT <br />I. THERE WAS NO "EFFECT[IVE]" PERMANENT MANDATORY <br />INJUNCTION <br />A. The district court had no authority under ERL's declaratory judgment <br />action to issue a permanent mandatory injunction <br />"The declaratory judgments law was not designed to supplant other remedies well <br />established and working satisfactorily." Farmers & Merchants Bank of Cochrane, Wis. <br />v. Billstein, 204 Minn. 224, 227, 283 N.W. 138, 139 (1938) (citations omitted). Indeed <br />declaratory judgment actions are statutorily limited. Under the Minnesota Declaratory <br />Judgments Act, a district court is only empowered to declare parties' respective rights or <br />status. Minn. Stat. § 555.01 provides that a district court "shall have power to declare <br />rights, status, and other legal relations." (Emphasis added). Chapter 555 does not <br />authorize a district court to compel a municipality to make a particular decision on a <br />zoning request. <br />The lack of any specific authorization in chapter 555 to compel a municipal <br />zoning action means that, in order to obtain its desired relief, ERL would have to pursue <br />two separate actions. In its first action, ERL would have to, as it has done, obtain from <br />the district court a declaration that City's failure to approve of the expansion of the SWF <br />Overlay District onto the adjacent 109-acre SDA was arbitrary. Then, in its second <br />action, ERL would have to obtain from the district court either a mandamus order or a <br />mandatory injunction compelling City to approve of the requested SWF Overlay District <br />expansion. <br />3 <br />