2006-05-16 Amend Complaint
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
DISTRICT COURT
TENTH mDICIAL DISTRICT
Other Civil- Breach of Contract
City 0f Albertville, Minnesota,
Court File No. C9-05-2481
Plaintiff
vs.
PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Edin~ Development Corporation,
Defendant.
FACTS
On July 19,2005, the City of Albertville ("City") served Edina Development
Corporation ("Edina") with a complaint alleging several violations of various developer's
agreements entered into between the City and Edina for the development of several
phase~ of the Albert Villas residentjal subdivisions ("Albert Villas Plats"). Edina served
an answer and a counterclaim upon the City, and the City subsequently served an answer
to Edina's counterclaim. In December, 2005, the City and Edina reached a tentative oral
settlement of the issues raised in this litigation. (Couri Affidavit, para. 3) On April 17,
2006, the City was notified by the City Engineer that the storm sewers and storm water
ponds in the Albert Villas Plats were not designed and constructed consistent with the
City's Subdivision Ordinance in that these structures did not contain storm water during a
100-year storm event without increasing the pre-development peak discharge rate of
storm water. (Nafstad Affidavit, paras. 4, 5 and 6) On May 8, 2006, the City and Edina
signeq a settlement agreement which conditionally settled all issues raised in the
1
Complaint, but which also preserved the right of the City to bring future actions against
Edina related to violations of the developer's agreements for the Albert Villas Plats,
including the storm water related claim which is contained in Plaintiff s Proposed
Amended Complaint. (Couri Affidavit, para. 5)
I
I
I Plaintiffhas brought this motion seeking to amend the Complaint against Edina
related to storm water problems recently discovered in the Albert Villas Plats, seeking to
bring related claims against the engineers and surveyors who were responsible for
desigping and reviewing the storm water systems, seeking to require Edina to obtain a
permit for grading work, and seeking to vacate the Scheduling Order until such time as
all proposed Defendants can be served and a new scheduling conference convened.
ARGUMENT
Rule 15.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to amend a
plead~ng only by leave of Court or by written consent of the adverse party once a
responsive pleading has been filed. The rule goes on to state that "leave shall be freely
given when justice so requires." Minnesota Courts have stated that the District Court
shoulq liberally grant a motion to amend pursuant to Rule 15.01 when justice requires
and doing so will not result in prejudice to the adverse party. Schroeder v. Jesco. Inc.,
209 N.W.2d 414,419 (Minn., 1973).
Justice requires that the City be allowed to amend the Complaint to include the
claims relating to the recently discovered storm water problems. Because the City did
not know of these problems when it originally filed the Complaint, it could not have
brought them at that time. Once the City did find out on April 17, 2006, it acted
2
promptly to bring this motion seeking to amend the Complaint. The claims are an
integral part of the current litigation in that they allege violations of the developer's
agreements already at issue, and will involve many of the same witnesses as would be
necessary to litigate the current claims.
! Because the City and Edina have effectively ceased work on litigating this case as
of December, 2005, and because significant discovery remains to be completed if this
case ultimately does not settle, the litigation has not progressed to the point where the
Defe~dant would be prejudiced by the proposed amendment. In fact, the Stipulation and
i
I
Settl~ment Agreement signed by the parties expressly contemplates that the City would
i
bring! future claims, including the storm water claims contained in the Amended
Complaint.
CONCLUSION
, Because the City acted promptly to amend the Complaint upon learning the facts
upon which the amendment is based, and because the litigation has not progressed to the
point where the proposed amendment will prejudice the Defendant, the City's motion to
amend the Complaint and vacate the scheduling order should be granted.
Dated: May 16, 2006
M(~
Michael C. Couri
Atty. No. 214887
COURI, MACARTHUR & RUPPE, P.L.L.P.
PO Box 369
705 Central Avenue East
St. Michael, MN 55376
(763) 497-1930
3