2002_1202_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

certiorari. The State Defendants also assert Plaintiffs ha�e failed to demonstrate, as a matter of fact. that they ��orked as ��olunteer firefighters during the relevant time period. Plaintiffs also seek summaty judgment in their fa�or on all of their claims. The Defendant City of Hastings did not take any position with respect to the motions. .a�.a��srs: 1. Summary judgment standard. Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, depositions, discovery documents and affidavits demonstrate there is no genuine issue of material fact and that a pariy is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Minn. R Civ. P. 56.0 3. A pariy opposing summary judgment may not rely merely on its pleadings, but must present specific facts demonstrating there is a genuine issue of material fact. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.05; W.J.L. v. Bugge, 573 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. 1998). �1'hen considering such a motion, the court must �'iew the facts in the light most fa�orable to the non-il�o��ing �arty. Nord v. Hen�eid, 305 N.�V.2d 337 (Minn, 1951). 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case. The State Defendants argue this Court has no jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs' claims because tV[inii. Stat. � 434A.02 vests jurisdiction with the appellate court. The State Defendants further ar� ue that if ��Z4A.0? does not apply. immediate appellate review is appropriate because the State Auditor's decision was quasi judicial in nature. Minn. Stat. § 424A.02, subd. 3a(d) pro��ides: