5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

exchanged gives fERLI the reasonable expectation that fCityl will approve an application for e~ansion which complies with its legal requirements") (emphasis added); see also id. at 31 (City's "consideration in the [2003] HCA [is] to cooperate with [ERL)'s legal efforts to expand") (emphasis added). Upon being informed on April 8, 2010 of the 4/2/10 Order in favor of ERL against City (Clark Aff., Ex. B), MPCA sent to ERL the very next day a draft of the agency's proposed permit. Attach. 5 at 1. MPCA promised to publicly notice the proposed permit once it received ERL's comments on the draft permit. Id. ("[o]nce [MPCA] hear[s] back from [ERL], [MPCA] will schedule the public notice"). Then, days later and, not coincidentally, right after MPCA admittedly met with City officials, MPCA threatened to both (1) withhold its public noticing of ERL's proposed permit and (2) "revisit" ERL's certificate of need (CON) for its landfill expansion. Regardless of the merits of MPCA's threats, City's efforts to interfere directly contravene City's district court-recognized "cooperat[ion]" obligation.4 II. JUDICIAL ECONOMY AND THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE SUPPORT DISMISSAL In response to City's argument that an immediate appeal was necessary to protect against the threat that ERL may commence landfilling activities within the adjacent 109- acre SDA, ERL correctly noted that "Rules 62 and 65 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 108 of the Minnesota Rules of Appellate Procedure permit City to a The inapplicability of Rule 103.03(b) also defeats City's attempted reliance on Rule 103.04 to confer appellate jurisdiction. See City 4/28110 Opp. Br. at 11. Rule 103.04 permits this Court to exercise jurisdiction over "any other matter as the interest of justice may require" only "[o]n appeal from or review of an f appealable] order." (Emphasis added). Thus, by its plain terms, Rule 103.04 is not an independent basis for appellate jurisdiction but rather permits appellate review only when a valid appeal already exists. 10