Laserfiche WebLink
CONCLUSION <br />Neither City's original basis nor its new basis for arguing for this Court's <br />jurisdiction have been met. Rule 103.03(a)'s requirements that the appeal be from either <br />(1) a final disposition on all claims or (2) a Rule 54.02 ruling have clearly not been met. <br />And Rule 103.03(b)'s requirement that the appeal be from an "injunction" order, though <br />less clear, has also not been met. Before this appeal can be properly reviewed by this <br />Court, City must ask the district court to amend its order to comport with the <br />~: <br />requirements of either Rule 103.03(a) or 103.03(b), or both. ERL respectfully submits <br />,. <br />that this is the only way of avoiding the parties' (or this Court's) speculation as to what <br />the district court's order did or intended to do. The stakes at issue are way too high for <br />the appeal to proceed on the mindreading of the district court, particularly when that <br />court has not yet been asked to clear up the confusion. <br />DATED: Apri130, 2010 BRIGGS AND MORGAN, P.A. <br />Jac .Perry (#209272 <br />Jason R. Asmus (#319405) <br />2200 IDS Center <br />Minneapolis, MN 55402 <br />(612) 977-8400 <br />ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT <br />ELK RIVER LANDFILL INC. <br />2503334v7 <br />16 <br />