The URL can be used to link to this page

cp12-02-1994 Closed Meeting cDAVID B. ARNOLD' STEVEN A. ANDERSON G. BARRY ANDERSON* STEVEN S. HOGE LAURA K. FRETLAND DAVID A. BRUEGGEMANN PAUL D. DOVE** RICHARD G. McGEE CATHRYN O. REHER GINA M. BRANDT BRETT O. ARNOLD ?ALSO ADMITTED IN TEXAS AND NEW YORK ARNOLD, ANDERSON & DOVE PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 101 PARK PLACE HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA 55350-2563 (612) 587 -7575 FAX(612)587 -4096 Mr. Gary D. Plotz City Administrator Hutchinson City Center 111 Hassan Street S.E. Hutchinson, Mn. 55350 RESIDENT ATTORNEY G. BARRY ANDERSON December 2, 1994 Re: Hutch, Inc. vs. City of Hutchinson Our File No. 3244 -93063 Dear Gary: OF COUNSEL RAYMOND C. LALLIER JANE VAN VALKENBURG 5661 CEDAR LAKE ROAD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416 (612) 545 -9000. FAX (612) 545 -1793 501 SOUTH FOURTH STREET PRINCETON, MINNESOTA 55371 (612) 309 -2214 FAX (612) 389 -5506 DEC 5 ]994 I am enclosing herewith a copy of correspondence received from Attorney Christopher Nelson dated December 1, 1994 which is self - explanatory. City Council needs to consider, at its incr on December 13, whether or not it wig a offer to the proposal maue cry . ■. u��..• -- _ - -� -- - eliminate individual meters as a factor in billing between the City and Country Club Terrace but rather simply an offer by Mr. Block to pay 90% of the amount billed each month. He is also looking for forgiveness of the outstanding balance. I would suggest, so that the Council is in a position to address this issue, that perhaps a summary could be prepared regarding the status of the account at present. Additionally, the City —migTy want to have the invo vemen o Randy DeVries at the time this discussion occurs and I will leave it to you to decide that issue. Finally, although we have had discussion on this point in an open meeting the last two or three times the question of settlement has come up, on this occasion I would prefer that we hold a closed _�___ _ _ ,�,,•, �nh,*AnIAA meeting to address these issues. I would not anticipate it to be iengtny, given the Council's position on some of these issues, but I do think we should have a candid discussion of all of the factors involved. 'CERTIFIED AS A CIVIL TRIAL SPECIALIST BY THE MINNESOTA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION **CERTIFIED AS A REAL PROPERTY LAW SPECIALIST BY THE MINNESOTA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION Mr. Gary D. Plotz December 2, 1994 Page 2 Thank you for your time and attention to these matters. Best regards. Very truly yours, OLD, AN RSO9 OVE, P.L.L.P. . Barry Anderson GBA:lm Enclosure 12!01.94 11:41 $1112 542 9210 ARNI.D.ANDRSRDOCE -,44 HiTCHINSON 12003!012 . . DEC 01 '94 11"25AH P,P,T, &P P.2i11 PUSTORINO, PEDERSON, TiLTON & PARRINGTON, P.L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW surn 200 4005 WrAT 6ftH STREET M1N,,EAeoLis. WxssorA 554353765 Ta mo.%E (612) 9253001 FAx (612) 9254203 B'Y )FAC UOU & WT S TA—M Mr. G. Barry Anderson Attorney at Law 101 Park Place Hutchinson, MN 55350 December 1, 1994 RE: Hutch, Inc. v. City of Hutchinson Our mile No: GABC 13487 Dear Mr. Anderson: "Peter 1. Pustortno William R. Pederson •[aria R. Man Ion P. Farrington jowl M. Musco lat 'Charles J. Noel •Krlstln B. Mahn$ Carol A. Kubie Thomas jj Mlsurelt M. 0 pin Hall Richard S. 3tcmpel Roger H. Wlllhaus Tamara G. Garcia Jeffrey J. Lindquist Mark J. Weaver Christopher A. Nelson jeffry C. Schmidt •Assn Admitted N Wi,w h "Al.. Ad dltrd In Nerds Nkeb Enclosed please find Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. The basis for this motion is Plaintiff's failure on two occasions to attend a properly noticed deposition. I would like to be able to have Mr. Parrington appear at the motion hearing on December 15 with "clean hands ". Therefore, I would appreciate it if you could get the discovery responses back to me by tomorrow. Please call me to discuss if this is a problem. Also attached is Plaintiff's settlement proposal per Judge McCarthy's Order. Block wants the City to write off the past amount owed and charge future sewer usage at 90% of the master meter reading. Per the Judge's Order, this proposal j~nlist be presented to the Council at their meeting of December 13. Further, they must either accept the offer or make a counter proposal at the same meeting. This needs to be faxed to me immediately so that I can provide it to Mr. Bonner by noon on December 14. Mr. Block's proposal has some merit in that he no longer requests that the City allow him to use the individual meters. Perhaps 90% is too low.. Perhaps a compromise can be reached on the percentage, and that same percentage applied to the amount past due. I look forward to hearing from you. 12 %O1 %91 11:12 '6812 512 9210 MD.4NDRS &DOPE 444 RUCHINSON [a 001 /012 DEC 01 '94 11 :25RM P,P,T, &P P.3i11 Mr. G. Barry Anderson December 1, 1994 Page Two Sincerely, PUSTORINP, PEDERSON, TILTON & PAgRUfGTON, P.L.L.P. A. Nelson CAN /sf Enclosures 12 %01 %94 11:42 $612 542 9210 . . DEC 01 '94 11126PM P,P,T.&P STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF MCLEOD Hutch, Inc., d /b /a Country Club Terrace mobile home park, Plaintiff, vs. The City of Hutchinson, Defendant. ARNLD,3.NDRS &DOVE + +a HUTCHINSON 12 003:012 P.4z11 OTHER CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COURT FILE NO. C3- 93-448 TO: PLAINTIFF ABOVE -NAMED AND ITS ATTORNEY, 1OH11T F. BONNER III, 100 SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 1100, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402. INTRODUCTION Defendant brings this motion to dismiss based upon Plaintiffs refusal to allow its principal to attend a properly noticed deposition on two occasions. Plaintiff has consistently demonstrated a pattern of unwillingness to cooperate, and a tendency to pick and choose which orders of the Court and which Rules of Civil Procedure it will follow. FACTS The facts of the lawsuit are well documented in Defendant's previous motion to compel which was heard on April 4, 1994, and Defendant's previous request for a dismissal heard on June 7, 1994. In addition, the Affidavit of Christopher A. Nelson dated October 21, 1994 and previously filed with the Court contains a chronology of events occurring 12-0194 11:42 '0612 542 9210 DEC 01 '94 11 :26AM P,P,T,&P between April 4, 1994 and October 21, 1994. aRNI.D, ANDRS &DOVE 444 HLTCHINSON On October 21, 1994, Defendant noted the deposition of William Block, Plaintiffs [a 006/012 P.Si11 principal, to be held on Friday, November 18, 1994. (See cover letter and Notice of Taking Deposition attached to the Affidavit of Christopher A. Nelson as Exhibit A).' On Thursday, November 17, 1994 Defendant's counsel received a telephone call from Plaintiff s counsel regarding the deposition scheduled for the next morning. (Affidavit of Christopher A. Nelson). Plaintiff's counsel, Mr_ Bonner, indicated that he wanted to review a study conducted by the City several years earlier and then hold a settlement conference prior to allowing Mr. Block to give deposition testimony. 1I1. He indicated that he would produce Mr. Block within five days of receiving the aforementioned documentation. Idd. He requested that a representative of the City attend the settlement conference prior to the deposition. Ld. Mr, Bonner stated that it was "unacceptable" to conduct the deposition as noted November 18 without first providing him with a copy of the study and then holding a settlement conference. Id. Mr. Bonner indicated that both he and Mr. Block were available for the deposition on November 18 if his conditions were met. L. Counsel for the City responded to Plaintiffs demands by letter dated November 17. (See Exhibit 13). The City declined the offer of a settlement conference, as the City is a representative body which must vote on any settlement proposal. Second, the Court had already outlined a procedure to communicate settlement proposals in its Order setting 'Pur*er rdcTCa et to etchibiot wilt be in the form of 'Soo Exhibit —0. Each sueh exhibit win be attached to th, Affidavit of Chh"hur A. Neloon. -2- 12-,01-14 11:33 $612 532 9210 DEC 01 '94 11:26AM P,P,T, &P AR \LD..MXDRS &DOVE 444 HUTCHINSON Z007/012 hearing dated November 9, 1994. Counsel for the City advised that it would hold the deposition as scheduled because both Bonner and Block were available on November 18. Id. Plaintiff's counsel responded to Exhibit B with a letter of the same date. (See Exhibit Q. Counsel stated that "a meeting which does not include a settlement conference is a waste of time ". Plaintiff's counsel indicated that Mr. Block would not attend the November 18 deposition. Id. He offered other dates when he and his client would be available for a deposition, including Wednesday, November 23, 1994. ld. In accordance with Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel's availability outlined in Exhibit C, Defendant rescheduled Mr. Block's deposition for Wednesday, November 23 at 9:00 a.m. (See letter and Amended Notice of Taking Deposition dated November 18, 1994 attached as Exhibit D; See also clarifying letter dated November 18 attached as Exhibit E). P.6i11 On Tuesday afternoon, November 22, Defendant's counsel called Plaintiffs counsel to verify that both Mr. Bonner and Mr. Block would be attending the deposition. [Defendant's counsel] spoke with Jackie, Mr. Bonner's legal assistant, who informed [him] that Mr. Bonner was in a deposition and she did not know the status of Mr. Block's deposition. At some time after 5:00 p.m. [he] again called Mr. Bonner and spoke to Jackie, who informed [him] that the deposition of Mr. Block would not be held. (Affidavit of Christopher A. Nelson). Shortly thereafter, a facsimile letter to that effect was sent by Plaintiff's counsel to Defendant's counsel. (See letter dated November 22 attached as Exhibit F). Plaintiff counsel suggested in Exhibit F that Mr. Block be deposed after the pre -trial -3- 12.0194 11:45 $312 542 9210 . DEC 01 '94 11 :27RM P.P.T. &P ARSLD..a.NDRS &DOPE 444 HUTCHINSON Z 008/012 of December 15. Id. This suggestion completely ignores the concerns of Defendant outlined in Exhibit B, namely that the City wanted a summary of Mr. Block's testimony in order to consider the Plaintiff's court - ordered settlement proposal at the City's council meeting of December 13. It is also not appropriate for Plaintiff to manipulate Defendant's discovery to its own advantage. ARGUMENT P.7,,11 I. DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IS AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION POR PLAIN'I'1PF'S REFUSAL TO ATTEND A PROPERLY NOTICED DEPOSITION ON TWO OCCASIONS. `Rule 37.04 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure states: If a party ... fails to appear before the officer who is to take the deposition, after being served with a proper notice ... the Court in which the action is pending on motion may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, including any action authorized in Rule 37.02(b)(1), (2) and (3). In lieu of any order or in addition thereto, the Court shall require the party failing to act or the attorney advising that parry or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, caused by the failure, unless the Court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Rule 37.02(b)(3) states that an appropriate sanction is an "Order striking pleadings or parts thereof, staying further proceedings until the Order is obeyed, dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party". Minn. R. Civ. Proc. 37.02(b)(3) (emphasis added)- The choice of a sanction for failure of a party to attend a deposition is a matter within the trial court's discretion. See generally, Chicago Greatwestelm Off. Condo v. Brooks, 427 N.W.2d 728, 730 (Minn. App. 0 1201%93 11:33 '6`012 Sat 9210 ARSLD. NDRS &DOVE 444 HL'TCHI \SOV C�J009i012 . DEC 01 '94 11!27AM P,P,T,&P P.E/11 1989); Statz. by Hum v Ri -Mel. Inc., 417 N.W.2d 102, 108 (Minn. App. 1987). Plaintiffs ongoing obstructionism with regard to the discovery process justifies the sanction of dismissal. In Ri -Mel, a case in which Ri -Mel's pleadings were stricken and judgment was entered, the Court commented that "the record reflects [that] Appellant disregarded court orders and the rules of discovery and caused unnecessary delays and wasted valuable judicial time ". Ri -Mel at 109. Plaintiff in this case disregarded Defendant's numerous request for discovery from June of 1993 until March of 1994 when a motion to compel was filed. Even then it ignored the motion, failed to serve responses or a memorandum opposing the motion, failed to attend the motion hearing and ignored the Court's discovery order of April 4 until Defendant filed an Affidavit seeking dismissal of the case. Even after the hearing on the issue of dismissal in June of 1994, Plaintiff continued to pick and choose which discovery it would answer. Finally, Defendant noted the deposition of William Block in an attempt to obtain responses. Even then, Plaintiff attempted to set terms and conditions under which the deposition could be held, and ultimately refused to let Mr. Block attend on two separate occasions. Plaintiffs counsel makes much out of the fact that he has not received a certain report from the City. However, a party cannot hinge its own responses to one form of discovery on the other party's responses to another form of discovery. Unless the Court upon motion, for the convenience of parties and witnesses in the interest of justice orders otherwise, methods of discovery may be used in any sequence ind the fact that a parry is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or otherwise, shall not overate to delay any o er es' Q1 12,'0193 11:33 16812 Sat 9210 2.RNLD..J..NDRS &DOA'E 444 HLTCHI \SO\ Z010;012 DEC 01 194 1112ERM P,P,T,&P P.01/11 Minn. R. Civ. Proc. 26.04 (emphasis added). It appears that Plaintiff is already in possession of the report and his request for another copy is just a delaying tactic. (Sea letter dated April 8, 1993 attached as Exhibit G). Regardless of what Plaintiff has or does not have it its possession, Plaintiff is not entitled to set the terms of its principle's appearance at a properly noticed deposition. CONCL S-1ON For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion. Dated: r 2, �, 4 7 PUSTORINO, PBDERSON, TILTON B) Christopher A. Nelson, #225514 Attorneys for Defendant 4005 West 65th Street, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55435 -1765 (612) 925 -3001 12A1-`93 11: 41 DEC 01 _' 94 r/32/Z4 bb• 11 JO.•+ waw\IV G. wOOpRY ••. Ls.rr J.Gw w. wpP OCn.: rOwM r, �Our.e n ul a,Vla COTI_ Ca w114. ocOr1.? ...."110W JCPOnc'r C. Pt>bf,.W. .IOGC /M M. IR KO..OIrp Ki Jon ►. NO►c..NN C. pL," . ,.. 11 I...upd• C+VIAA ODi'�c rq 11 rO..N �,. Isv• $612 542 9210 11; 26AM� PI, P, T, &P ARNLD,ANDRS &DO E +tea HLTCHINSON fdj011 %012 D CS kif 8 i 925 223 NO.602 , gill 6Aw orrICF.$ P/�RSINEN BOWMAN a. LEVY A P\D /CS&IDNAI. �fi70CIATIOM q..v Ov s. cvwvO 100 SOJTH PIOTq ST'REA•'7• ww..w [. r.wTprs 1100 aTG+rGN [. •.+YZ 3 V IYE sepCCC. J, �K.DUa et MMNEAPOwz. MINNESOTA SEJtv2 wvcCwT ,.,. •••rte JOHN w, OCOQQK. TptL92WWOW9<am) Da.•2.I. '••'. J..'u uoCr r'.1431 M1..P1 l0127 wpwCN D. NuNTC4 WRTCR'S D.YaGT DIn�MVr1CGR B[..Orc. ,�, wtsracnCw ($12) 342 -0310 o4YCie.Jw... O.'CIV.Y[V November 30, 1994 By Fps E "D Wil Christopher Nelson, Esq. pustorino, Pederson, Tilton a parrington, P.L.L -P Suite 200 400F West 65th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 Re: Hutch, Inc[ V. City of Hutchinson your File Non GABC -13457 Our File No. SS06/4 Dear Mr. Nelson% Pursuant to the Court's order of November 9, 1994, I am subaitting to you a written demand for damages. Mr. Block has previously offered that he will pay sewer charges based upon a computation equal to 904 of the charge assessed by the amount of water flowing through the master meter. Mr. Block will pay this amount from the date of settlement forward. It is my understanding that Hr. Block has continued to pay you the amount of charges that were assessed by measuring the amount of water passing through the individual meters. The City, however, has continued to bill him based upon the amount of water passing through the master meter. Thereforer according to the City, Mr. Block's account status is not paid in full. Damages can be calculated by determining what the difference is between the amount you billed Mr. Block and the amount he has paid you based on the individual meter's assessment. Mr. Block will agree to settle this matter if these charges are considered paid in full and the parties continue forward under the 90% agreement discussed above. I expect to receive your counteroffer on December 14, 1994, as d1vected by Judge McCarthy. In addition, please note that I am still awaiting your discovery responses to the discovery served upon you on September 21, 1994. As I have previously informed you, this is essential to permit my client to make an informed decision regarding this matter. 0080'127.01 12;01•1-1 11:45 $812 $42 9210 .DEC 01 194 11:26M P,P,T, &P 11/30/94 06 =11 F IESINEvO PARSINEN &OWMAN & LEVY Christopher Nelson, Esq. November 30, 1994 Page 2 Please feel free to questions. ,3rs: Kbo ARNLD- ANDRSOOAT 444 HLTCHINSON Q012/012 D tE tErff & i 9254203 H0.502 P.11/11 cc:: Judge Thomas C. McCarthy William Block 0080i27.Ol me it you should have any . Bo mfw, III DAVID B.ARNOLD' BABY D. MCDOWELL STEVEN A. ANDERSON O. BARRY ANDERSON STEVEN S. NODE LAURA R. FRETEAND DAVID A. BRIIE06EMANN PAUL D. DOVE RICHARD O. MCGEE CATHRYN D. REHER GINA M. BRANDT BRETT D. AIN OLD 'ALSO ADMITTED IN TE. S AND HEN TO88 November 21, 1994 ARNOLD & MCDOWELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW 101 PARE PLACE HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA 55350 -2583 (012) 587 -7575 Mr. Gary D. Plotz City Administrator Hutchinson City Center 111 Hassan Street S.E. Hutchinson, Mn. 55350 FAX 10121587 -4080 RESIDENT ATTORNEY O. HARRY ANDERSON Re: Hutch Inc. vs. City of Hutchinson Our File No. 3244 -93063 Dear Gary: OF COUNSEL WILLIAM W. CAMERON RAYMOND C. LALLIER 5881 CEDAR LASE ROAD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55418 (812)545 -0000 FAX (8121545 -1703 501 SOUTH POURTH STREET PRINCETON, MINNESOTA 55371 (8121389 -2214 FAX 18121 389 -5500 NOY 22 04 Enclosed is a copy of correspondence from Attorney Christopher A. Nelson. Please include this correspondence with the next council packet. I was contacted by the court regarding the status of this matter. The court would very much like to get the matter resolved and accordingly, I think we can expect significant pressure to make some moves towards resolving the dispute. Please place this matter on the agenda for the December 13, 1994 City Council meeting. Thank you. very truly yours, }iRNOLD & CDOWEL7� '�� 1 a✓) e •G. Barry Anderson GBA:lm Enclosure 'CERTIFIED AS A CIVIL TRIAL SPECIALIST BY THE MINNESOTA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION "CERTIFIED AS A REAL PROPERTY LAW SPECIALIST BY THE MINNESOTA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION PUSTORINO, PEDERSON, TILTON & PARRINGTON, P.L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Surre 200 4005 WEST 65TH STREEr MwNEAEous, MINNEsarA 55435 -1765 TELEPHONE (612) 925 -3001 FA (612) 925 -4203 Mr. G. Barry Anderson Attorney at Law 101 Park Place Hutchinson, MN 55350 November 15, 1994 RE: Hutch, Inc. v. City of Hutchinson Our File No: GABC 13487 Dear Mr. Anderson: *Peter J. Pustorino William R. Pederson *Louis R. Tilton **Jon P. Parrington Joel M. Muscoplat *Charles J. Noel *Kristin B. Maland Carol A. Kubic Thomas J. Misurek M. Chapin Hall Richard S. Stempel Roger H. Willhaus Tamara G. Garcia Jeffrey J. Lindquist Mark J. Weaver *Christopher A. Nelson Jeffry C. Schmidt 'ALso Admired N Wiscomm •'Also Admiued m Nonh Dakota $nelosed for your review please find draft answers that I have compiled to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents. By copy of this letter, I am providing a set of these drafts to Randy DeVries so that he may assist us in providing responses. If there are other individuals whose input would be beneficial, I would appreciate it if you would arrange their assistance. If at all possible, I would like responses within a week (by November 23). I have scheduled Mr. Block's deposition for November 18, 1994 in my office. If you would like to attend, please feel free to do so. Enclosed is a copy of Judge McCarthy's Order. As you can see, Plaintiff must make a demand on the City by November 30, 1994. The City must consider the offer at its meeting on December 13 and present a counter -offer to Plaintiff by noon on December 14. I would suggest that we work closely together on December 14. The Court has scheduled a pre -trial for December 15 in Glencoe. Although your attendance isn't required, the "client with authority to settle must attend ". It would seem to me that Mr. Plotz is the most appropriate person to attend on behalf of the City. Please let me know who will attend on behalf of the City. Sincerely, PUSTORINO, PEDERSON, TILTON & P TON, P.L.L.P. stop er A. Nelson CAN /sf Enclosure cc: Randy DeVries (w /enclosure- discovery) Gary Plotz (w /enclosure- order) DAVID B. ARNOLD' GARY D. MCDOWELL STEVEN A. ANDERSON O. BARRY ANDERSON' STEVEN S. HOOE LAURA E. PRETLAND DAVID A.HHVEOOEMANN PAUL D. DOVE" HICRARD O.McGEE CATHRYN D. REBER GDIA M. BRANDS BRETT D. ARNOLD 1 ALSO ADMITTED IN TEXAS AND NSM Y088 November 21, 1994 ARNOLD & MCDOWELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW 101 PARR PLACE HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA 55350-2563 (612) 587 -7575 Mr. Gary D. Plotz City Administrator Hutchinson City Center 111 Hassan Street S.E. Hutchinson, Mn. 55350 FAX (61P) 587 -4089 RESIDENT ATTORNEY O. BARRY ANDERSON Re: Hutch, Inc. vs. City of Hutchinson Our File No. 3244 -93063 OF COUNSEL WILLIAM W. CAMERON RAYMOND C. LALLIER 5881 CEDAR LASE ROAD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416 IW21 645-0000 FAX (612) 545 -1783 501 SOUTH FOURTH STREET PRINCETON, MINNESOTA 55371 (6221380-2214 PAX 16121 350-5506 NOV 2 2 1994 FOR YOUR INFORMATION Dear Gary: In connection with the December 13, 1994 City Council meeting, please find enclosed a copy of an Order which was filed on November 9, A pre trial conference has been set for December 15, 1994 at 11:3 A.M. istrator, need to be present at that hearing. 2 believe I ill probably need to be present as well and I have marked this hearing on my calendar. Please pass my correspondence and this Court Order along to the Council for its consideration in the next regularly scheduled Council packet. Thank you. Very truly yours, ARNOLD & Mc OWELL jar1; 1 I J CSC/ 1 Barry nderson GBA:lm Enclosure 'CERTIFIED AS A CIVIL TRIAL SPECIALIST BY THE MINNESOTA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION 'CERTIFIED AS A REAL PROPERTY LAW SPECIALIST BY THE MINNESOTA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF McLEOD John F. Bonner, III Attorney at Law 100 South Fifth St. Suite 1100 Minneapolis, MN 55402 G. Barry Anderson Attorney at Law 101 Park Place Hutchinson, MN 55350 Christopher A. Nelson Attorney at Law Suite 200 4005 West 65th St. Minneapolis, MN 55435 -1765 RE: File, No.. C3 -93 -448 DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT Hutch, Inc., d /b /a Country Club Terrace Mobile Home Park vs. The City of Hutchinson NOTICE OF: g You are hereby notified that on November 9th, 1994 ORDER was filed in the above - entitled matter. You are hereby notified chat on , a Judgment was duly entered in the above - entitled matter. You are hereby notified that at on a Judgment was duly docketed in the above - entitled matter in the. amount of I A true and correct copy of Notice has been served by mail upon the parties named herein at the last knov'r address of each pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure., Rule 77.04 DATED: November 9th, 1994 JOAN FROEHL COURT ADMINISTRATOR a STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF MCLEOD Hutch, Inc., d /b /a Country Club Terrace mobile home park, Plaintiff, V. The City of Hutchinson, Defendant. IN DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT- File No. C3 -93 -448 ORDER The Court, having considered the files and pleadings herein, the evidence submitted, the arguments of counsel and otherwise being advised in the premises, makes the following ORDER: 1. A hearing is set on for the aforementioned parties before the Honorable Thomas G. McCarthy at the Mcleod County Courthouse on December 15, 1994 at 11:30 A.M. 2. The attorneys who will try the case and the clients with authority to settle must attend the hearing. 3. Plaintiff must submit a written demand for damages to the defendant by November 30, 1994. 4. Defendant must present plaintiff's demand to the Hutchinson City Council at their meeting on December 13, 1994. Defendant must make a counter offer to plaintiff by 12:00 noon on December 14, 1994. S. The hearing will address these issues; settlement, defendant's request for attorney's fees, outstanding discovery problems, and trial setting. Dated: November 1994 FILEDHon. Thomas G. McC Judge of District Court NOV 0 9.1994 JOAN PQOERI COURT ADMINISTRATOP. MCLEOD COUNTY MN