Minnesota, State of v. CMI of Kentucky, Inc.

Filing 121

Minnesota, State of v. CMI of Kentucky, Inc.

Doc. 121

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Chambers of DONOVAN W. FRANK DISTRICT JUDGE Warren E. Burger Federal Building 316 North Robert Street, Suite 724 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 [phone]

March 27, 2009

VIA ECF ONLY Emerald A. Gratz Alan I. Gilbert Assistant Attorneys General Minnesota Attorney General's Office 445 Minnesota St Ste 1800 St Paul, MN 55101 Charles A. Ramsay, Esq. Daniel J. Koewler, Esq. Charles A. Ramsay & Associates, P.L.L.C. 450 Rosedale Towers 1700 West Highway 36 Roseville, MN 55113 Re: John J. Gores, Esq. Gores Law Office 7091 Hwy 65 NE Suite 201 Fridley, MN 55432 William A McNab, Esq. David M Aafedt, Esq. Jessica Slattery Karich, Esq. Winthrop & Weinstine, PA 225 S. 6th St., Suite 3500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4629

State of Minnesota, by Michael Campion, its Commissioner of Public Safety v. CMI of Kentucky, Inc. Civil No. 08-603 (DWF/AJB)

Dear Counsel: The Court has received a request in the above-referenced case from the Plaintiff State of Minnesota ("State") asking that it delay its ruling regarding the motion of Defendant CMI of Kentucky, Inc. ("CMI") to dismiss the Complaint in Intervention of Plaintiff-Intervenor Christopher D. Jacobsen. The State indicates that it believes issues presented in the motion overlap with issues to be briefed by the parties in connection with cross-motions scheduled for hearing on June 4, 2009. The State requests that the Court defer its ruling on CMI's motion until it considers the cross-motions. CMI objects to the State's request, contending that the State had an opportunity to present its position on CMI's motion at the time it was briefed and heard. CMI notes that the State first indicated that it would not appear at the hearing on the motion, but changed course in the days prior to the hearing. Notwithstanding that it had not submitted a brief, the State appeared at the hearing and, over the objection of CMI, was permitted to note its position

Dockets.Justia.com

Counsel March 27, 2009 Page 2

regarding the issues presented. Therefore, CMI contends that the State's position is known and, to the extent it was not presented, the State has waived any further argument. CMI's position has merit. As a party to the contract at issue in this case, the State should have briefed the issues raised in CMI's motion prior to the Court's hearing on that matter. Instead, the State's position and its presence at the hearing were something of a moving target. At the same time, however, the Court recognizes that this matter concerns issues of significant public interest, which are beyond the interests of the specific parties themselves. Given that, the Court concludes that its decision would benefit from the fullest possible exposition of the issues in this case. Therefore, over CMI's objection and without condoning the State's conduct, the Court grants the State's request and will defer ruling on CMI's motion until it considers the parties' cross-motions. Very truly yours, s/Donovan W. Frank DONOVAN W. FRANK Judge of United States District Court DWF:rlb