5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

successfully argued to the district court for the dismissal of ERL's mandamus claim. 4/2/10 Order at 22-24, 32 ¶ 2.1 C. The district court did not intend to issue an "effectfivel" permanent mandatory iniunction With regard to the district court's declaratory judgment pronouncement that "[ERL] is entitled to proceed with its proposed landfill expansion" (4/2/10 Order at 32 ¶ 3), the most that City can say is "the effect of the [district] court's declaration is in many respects like the effect of an injunction." 4/28/10 City Opp. Br. at 4 (emphasis added). In support of this contention, City adds that "the district court's order for entry of judgment im lies that it did not see any need to say more about the contract claim in light of the relief granted." Id. at 12 (emphasis added); see also id. ("[ERL]'s list of unanswered rhetorical questions about the contract claim ignores the likely prospect that the district court did not attempt to answer them because the answers no longer mattered to that court, in light of the relief granted [ERL] on the declaratory judgment claim") (emphasis added). Stated otherwise, City argues that "[w]hat [ERL] forgets is that in this case, the district court spears to have believed that there was nothing further for it to decide -unlike courts that believe there is a need for further proceedings at the district court level, but want to authorize an appeal by adding the words required by Rule 54.02 to accomplish that result." Id. at 14 (emphasis added); see also id. ("[u]nder these ~ Based on the district court's declaratory judgment ruling in favor of ERL, ERL's mandamus (or mandatory injunction) claim would now be ripe. As it relates to mandamus, City would have to concede that such a mandamus petition would now be sufficiently "ministerial (i.e. involving no exercise of discretion)." 12/14/09 City S.J. Reply Br. at 8. 6