Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Plaintiff Matthew 1. Look, ("Look"), purporting to represent both his minor son and <br /> <br /> <br />"those City of Ramsey residents similarly situated," brought this action for declaratory judgment <br /> <br /> <br />and injunctive relief, alleging that PACT has adopted an "erroneous enrollment policy" because <br /> <br /> <br />it applies the Sibling Preference but does not apply a preference for residents of the City of <br /> <br /> <br />Ramsey. Look alleges that he obtained an "opinion" from the Minnesota Department of <br /> <br /> <br />Education ("MDE") that the word "town" in subdivision 9(3) is synonymous with "city" and <br /> <br /> <br />. therefore that PACT must apply the Town Preference to residents of Ramsey. Look does not <br /> <br /> <br />identify his residence, but presumably it is within the City of Ramsey. Look seeks a dec1aratio~ <br /> <br />confirming his proposed interpretation of subdivision 9(3); a temporary injunction preventing <br /> <br />PACT from holding a lottery for next year's admissions until the statute is interpreted; and an <br /> <br />order requiring PACT to correct past enrollment inequities by limiting the Sibling Preference to <br /> <br />those cases where the previously enrolled sibling was a resident of Ramsey. <br /> <br /> <br />PACT opposes Look's motion and.has filed a counter motion for summary judgment to <br /> <br /> <br />dismiss Look's complaint under Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. PACT interprets <br /> <br /> <br />subdivision 9(3) to require a charter school to provide a resident preference only where the <br /> <br /> <br />charter school is located in a "town". PACT maintains that the word "town" as used in the <br /> <br />statute means an entity that is organized under Minnesota law as a town, and that it does not <br /> <br />include an entity that is organized under Minnesota law as a city. PACT notes that the MDE <br /> <br /> <br />provided an administrative opinion, not a legal opinion, on the meaning of subdivision 9(3) and <br /> <br /> <br />believes that such opinion is contrary to the plain meaning of the subdivision and should not be <br /> <br /> <br />followed. <br /> <br /> <br />Further, PACT maintains that Look's request for a temporary injunction must be denied <br /> <br /> <br />because Look has not made a sufficient showing to satisfy the five factor standard; that is, (1) <br /> <br />-130- <br /> <br />3 <br />