2006_1031_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � Not Reported in �T,W,2d Not Reported in N.W.2d, 1998 WL 865714 (Minn.App.), 27 Media L. Rep. 1669 (Cite as: Not Reported in N.W.2d} purpose of circumventing t�,e law. Appellant contends that respondents' actions represent exactly the sort of subversions of the purpose of the Open Meeting Law that Moberg outlined as an exception to the quorum �e. W e disagree. Many of the same facts presented by appellant could be used to illustrate that respondents did not intend to subvert tk�e law. They admit that they wanted to conduct the interviews privately, as that had been advised as the best process for getting candid answers from applicants. They were also advised that such a process would not violate the Open Meeting Law. They then sought the counsel of the ciry attorney, who, with the guidance of an unpublished order opinion from this court, advised that such an interview process would conform with the law. That opinion, while naturally not of precedential value, states that "individual contact beLween a member of the city council and an applicant who cannot vote on matters coming before the governing body does not constitute a meeting of #he governing body," and therefore does not represent a violation of the Open Meeting Law. Northwest Publications, 1nc. v. (�iy of' Apple Valley, et e+J., No. C7-91-332 (Mi�.App. Feb. 27, 1992). The steps respondents took to confirm the legaliry of the interview process does not show manipulation of the law, as appellant claims, but rather, care to conform with the dictates of the statute. II, AmendmentofComplaint In response to respondents' oral motion to dismiss appellant's complaint, appellant orally moved to amend its complaint to include a request for injunctive relie£ Leave to amend pleadings "sha11 be freely given when justice so requires." Minn. R Civ. P. 15.01. The district court is afforded wide discretion in deciding whether to grant amendments, and a reviewing court will not reverse its action absent a clear abuse of discretion. Fabio v. Bellamo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn.1993). Amendments to pleadings are liberally permitted absent prejudice to other patties. Pichke v. Kellen, 384 N'."W.2d 201, 204 (Minn.App.198b). Page 3 of 4 Page 3 Respondents argue that the district court abused its discretion by granting the amendment because the amendment served no legal purpose. See id. (amendment is properly denied where it legally serves no purpose). Respondents contend that because it was clear from the hearing that there was no violation of the Open Meeting Law, the amendment served no legal purpose. We disagree. Clearly, the amendment had the legal purpose of keeping the complaint from being dismissed for lack ofusticiability. �'4 Respondent also argues that granting of the amendment (�CmpriStCd#C(� an abuse of discretion because there is nothing to enjoin and because there is only an imagined injury. Neither argument bas merit. T�i, Dismissal for Non-dusticiabitity Respondents argue that the district caur[ improperly denied their motion to dismiss appellant's complaint for lack of a justiciable controversy. The district court's decision regarding dismissal of an action will only be reversed if there was an abuse of discretion. Sorensorr v. S� Paul Ramsey Med Ctr., 457 N.W.2d 188, 190 (Minn.1990). Because appellant initially sought only a declaration that the private interviews violated the Open Meeting Law, and did not seek penalties, respondents sought dismissal under Rupp v. Mayasrch, 561 N.W.2d 555 (Minn.App.I997). The complaint in Rupp was also seeking a declaration of violation of the Open Meeting Law. Id There, this court held that because the Open Meeting Law's enforcement provision did not provide for enforcement through declaratory judgment, there was no justiciable controversy and therefore the complaint was properly dismissed. ld at 558. Rupp would dictate dismissal if the district caurt had not allowed appellant to amend its complaint to include a request for injunctive relief, thereby negating respondents' motion. �€€i3mt�. � 2006 Thomson/'West. No Claim to Chig. U.S. Govt. Works. � h�,�:i��'�b�.v4c�[f3w�'.c�mJ�7717CfRRU{5��1.3€px?sY�S'pIi[�:11C3L�rkuClOdlrStf]��CI�—��i�,,. 7� I?r�l'�b