Laserfiche WebLink
The mootness doctrine is a flexible discretionary doctrine, not a mechanical rule <br />that is invoked automatically whenever the underlying dispute between the particular <br />parties is settled or otherwise resolved. Everest Development, Ltd. v. City of Roseville, <br />566 N.W.2d 341, 343 (Minn.App.1997). In the Mauer of Inspection of Minnesota Auto <br />Specialties, Inc., 346 N.W.2d 657, 658 (Minn.1984), the Minnesota Supreme Court held <br />that [i]f, pending an appeal, an event occurs which makes a decision on the merits <br />unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal will be dismissed as <br />moot. This same principle applies to matters before the district court. <br />This Court fmds that the final plat approval on September 28, 2005 is an event <br />that makes a decision on the merits of numbers 1, 3 and 4 of Dayspring's First Amended <br />Complaint unnecessary. The final plat approval gives Dayspring the relief requested in <br />numbers 1, 3 and 4. <br />As to number 2 of the prayer for relief, Dayspring seeks a declaratory judgment <br />that Little Canada's denial of final plat approval is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious. <br />The District Court, in its April 23, 2004 Order, and the Court of Appeals, in its February <br />1, 2005 Order, both held that Little Canada's denial of final plat approval was arbitrary, <br />capricious and unreasonable. <br />As to number 5 of the prayer for relief, Dayspring requests alternative relief. It <br />was argued as such when Dayspring brought its motion to amend the complaint to add <br />the claim. The effect of this claim is that Dayspring seeks damages in the event they are <br />not granted the relief sought in numbers 1 — 4. As stated above, this Court finds that <br />Dayspring has already received the relief requested in numbers 1 — 4 of their prayer for <br />relief. For this reason, alternate relief is not warranted. <br />7 <br />