05-09-2007 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

stating: On September 26, 2003, Dayspring brought a motion to amend the complaint, Dayspring is seeking to bring a new claim for a writ of mandamus requiring Little Canada to grant final plat approval. Dayspring is also seeking altemative relief in its First Amended Complaint that would allow Dayspring to recover its monetary damages its alleges Little Canada has caused. Memorandum in Support of Motion to Amend Complaint, pg. 4. On October 23, 2003, the Court granted Dayspring's motion and allowed Dayspring to file its First Amended Complaint. On November 14, 2003, Dayspring filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Following an unsuccessful court- ordered mediation, the Court granted Dayspring's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on April 23, 2004. The Court held that Little Canada's denial of Dayspring's final plat application was an unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious decision. The Court reversed Little Canada's denial of Dayspring's final plat application and ordered that Dayspring submit a final plat application that complied with certain conditions within 100 days. Little Canada was ordered to approve such application provided it complied with the conditions. On June 23, 2004, Little Canada appealed the April 23, 2004 Order. On February 1, 2005, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affiuned the district court's determination that Little Canada's denial of final plat approval was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and held that Dayspring had complied with all valid conditions and that Little Canada was estopped from asserting its claim that the final plat application was untimely. Following the Court of Appeals decision, the parties attempted to work out an acceptable final plat application. When these attempts failed, Dayspring submitted a Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus to the district court on July 27, 2005. 4