5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

local zoning body "did not consider the [parties'] 2002 stipulation" and "ignored the clear purpose of the stipulation." Id. (emphasis added).6 City's final two strawman arguments merit no more response than that the purported arguments attributable to ERL were simply not made. First, ERL nowhere argued or even suggested in its opening brief (or, for that matter, anywhere below} that it sought, as alleged by City, "to receive both the declaratory judgment issued and contract damages." 4/28/10 City Opp. Br. at 13 (emphasis in original). And, second, with regard to the district court's breach of contract ruling in favor of ERL, ERL, not surprisingly, expressed no "substantive disagreement with the district court's decision." Id. Rather City concedes "the list of unanswered rhetorical questions about the contract claim ...that the district court did not attempt to answer." Id. at 12. And, given that it concluded in the present tense that "ERL's causes of action for breach of contract is a cognizable claim" (4/2/10 Order at 20) and held that it "remains a viable claim" (id. at 32 ¶ 2), it is, contrary to City's conjecture, incomprehensible that the district court was done with its analysis of ERL's breach of contract claim. Moreover, despite City's arguments for an effective mootness bar to a final ruling on ERL's breach of contract claim, City never made and the district court never adopted a mootness bar. 6 Unable to distinguish the relevance of this Court's analysis in Veit USA, City is stuck arguing that Veit USA is totally irrelevant because (1) it is an unpublished decision and (2) it dealt with a quasi judicial CUP. City Opp. Br. at 13 n.26. The fact that the decision is unpublished simply reflects that the decision was made based on and did not change the already settled law. And this Court was not just addressing a mining CUP. Rather its ruling was expressly cognizant that the "central issue" with the mining operation was that it was to be "restor[ed]" as a 200-acre "C&D landfill" which needed "a rezone." Veit USA, Inc., 2009 WL 605722, at *4. In other words, there is no good faith basis to distinguish these two highly analogous cases. 15