Agenda - Council - 10/25/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY. A'rJ'OR N FY G~N£RAL STATE OF MINNESOTA ()JrF'J(-K ()~e Till-: R'l"r4tll~g% ST. PAUL 55155 September 26, 1983 ADDRI~.S.S Ri:PLY 1'O '[RANSPORTATION BLDG. PAUL. MN 55155 TEI.i:PHON}.: (612l 2~7-20~0 ,Mr. Gervaise Hatfield Court Administrator Second Judicial District Ramsey County Courthouse 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: City of Ramsey~ .et al. v..~ Court File No. 455510 State of Minnesotar et al. Dear Mr. Hatfield: Our office represents the defendants in the above-referenced action. Last Friday we received a Note of Issue filed by the plaintiffs along with a copy of a letter to you from plaintiff's counsel dated September 22, 1983, requesting that the trial of the matter be advanced on the Court's calendar so that it may be heard prior to the end of this year. For the reasons set forth below, defendants object to the advancement of the trial and respectfully suggest that plaintiffs' request should be denied. This suit, in which the statutory formula for'distribution by the State of local government aid is challenged, was commenced in January, 1982. Because it is a declaratory judgment action, in accordance with .the Special Rules of Practice for the Second Judicial District, it was placed on the trial calendar at an advanced date, without the filing of a note of issue. Specifically, it was assigned a day certain of April 19, 1982. At plaintiffs' request, the case was stricken from the calendar at that time with the understanding that it would not be placed on the trial calendar again until a note of issue was filed. (See attached letter dated February 24, 1982.) Upon inquiry, I was told by your office that because the case had been stricken at the request of counsel, when a note of issue was ultimately filed the case would be put on the trial calendar as an ordinary case and would not be advanced because it is a declaratory judgment action. Defendants have relied on the accuracy of this assurance in pr_oceeding with this litigation, and, accordingly, now must object to plaintiffs' request that the case nevertheless be advanced. Another reason that the case should not be advanced for trial is that defendants wish to bring a motion for summary judgment that they believe will dispose of the case. That motion has now. been scheduled for argument on November 15, 1983. Defendants suggest that it would be inappropriate and unfair to schedule this AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER