5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

in its brief to this Court, while treating them as banner headline in all other forums, demonstrates that the motion to dismiss is not well-founded." 4/28/10 City Opp. Br. at 11 (emphasis added); see also id. at 2 ("[werywhere but in this Court, [ERL] attributes great and immediate effect to the district court's declarations") (emphasis added); id. at 1- 2 ("[t]he declaration ... is never mentioned in [ERL)'s twelve-page brief to this Court, but its words are the centerpiece of attempts by [ERL], since the judgment was entered, to secure approval by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ('MPCA') of a permit far a 109-acre expansion") (emphasis added). Besides being a continuation from below of its irrelevant personal attacks on ERL and its counsel, City's accusations actually backfire. ERL was necessarily required in its initial motion to dismiss brief to base its challenge to this Court's jurisdiction over City's appeal on the bases for jurisdiction which were asserted by City in its 4/16/10 Statement of the Case at 1-3. To this end, ERL quoted much of City's jurisdictional statement, as well as City's answers to the jurisdictional questions in the Rule 133 form. 4/21/10 ERL Br. at 4-5. ERL did not address City's new Rule 103.03(b) basis for jurisdiction because Rule 103.03(b} and "injunction" or "injunctive relief' were "never mentioned" in City's 4/16/10 Statement of the Case, even though City describes its jurisdictional answer in its Statement of the Case as "an extensive answer to the question." 4/28/10 City Opp. Br. at 4 (emphasis added). (Minn. App. 1996) (striking material not presented to trial court); see also Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01 ("The papers filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any, shall constitute the record on appeal in all cases"). But, to the extent that this Court disagrees with its objection, ERL submits its own extra-record communications with MPCA. See below and Attach. 5. 8