The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Answer LO){)fE~ /iP ................................... . 1800 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Strcct Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 LAW FIR M South:iide Office Plaza, Suite 2A 1810 Crest view Drive Hudson, WI 54016 Lommt'tl. Ndstlrr. Cole' & S/CI,I(C'ba,l(. P. it (612) 339-8131 Minnesota WATS (800) 752-4297 FAX (612) 339-8U64 Stephen C. Rathke Attorney at Law Minneapolis Office (715) 386-8217 Twin City Line (612) 430-8085 FAX (715) 386-8219 (612) 336-9305 August 2, 1993 Daniel J. Young, Esq. Bologna & Young 2100 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 Re: Priorview Limited Partnership v. Independent School District #719 and the City of Prior Lake Court File No. 93-08239 Dear Mr. Youz:g: Enclosed and served upon you by mail please find the Separate Answer filed on behalf of the City of Prior Lake. Very truly yours, & STAGEBERG, P.A. Stephen C. Rathke SCR:bb Enclosure cc: Glenn R. Kessel Frank Boyles Tom Grundhoefer 1(/ STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF SCOTT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ------------------~----------- Court File No. 93-08239 Priorview Limited Partnership a/kia, Priorview Ltd., a Minnesota Limited Partnership, Plaintiff, va. SEPARATE ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Independent School District No. 719 of Scott County and the City of Prior Lake, Defendants. ------------------------------ Now comes the City of Prior Lake and for its Separate Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, states and alleges: 1. This Answering Defendant denies each and every claim, matter and thing contained in Plaintiff's Complaint except as hereinafter expressly admitted or otherwise answered. 2. Upon information and belief, this Answering Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 3 . This Answering Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 4. This Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of ;Plaintiff's Complaint except to assert that the document attached as Exhibit A of Plaintiff's Complaint speaks for itself. 5. with respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's Complaint, this Answering Defendant states that on July 21, 1987, it accepted for maintenance Phase I of the construction project and on October 3, 1991, it accepted for maintenance Phase II of the construction project, and is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations. 6. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, this Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint. 7. This Answering Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 8. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraphs 14 , 15 , 16, 17" 18, 19, 20, 2 1, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 thi s Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint. 9. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiff's Complaint, this Answering Defendant realleges the contents of Paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Answer. 10. This Answering Defendant denies ~he allegations contained in Paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 11. Wi th respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiff's Complaint, this Answering Defendant realleges the contents of Paragraphs 1 through 10 of this Answer. 2 12. This Answering Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of Plaintiff's Complaint. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 13. For its first affirmative defense, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim against it upon which relief can be granted. 14. For its second affirmative defense, this Answering Defendant alleges that any damages suffered by Plaintiff were the result of its own conduct or the conduct of parties other than this Answering Defendant. 15. For its third affirmative defense, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 16. For its fourth affirmative defense, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the applicable doctrine of waiver. 17. For its fifth affirmative defense, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the applicable doctrine of estoppel. 18. For its sixth affirmative defense, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the applicable doctrine of laches. 19. For its seventh affirmative defense, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the failure of Plaintiff to state its claim for fraud with the requisite specificity. 3 20. For its eighth affirmative defense, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages violates HinD. Stat. 549.191 and must be stricken. WHEREFORE, this Answering Defendant requests that Plaintiff receives nothing by this action and that the Answering Defendant have judgment in its favor, together with costs, disbursements and attorney's fees. LOMMEN, NELSON, COLE & STAGEBERG, P.A. Dated: August~, 1993 BY S phe . Rat ke, I.D. No. 89771 Attorneys for City of Prior Lake 1800 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 339-8131 ACKNOWLEDGMENT If the requirements of good faith pleading set forth in M.S. 549.21 are breached, the undersigned acknowledges that the court may award costs, including reasonable attorney's fees to opposing parties. ~~~ ~tephen C. Rathke 16772G\scr\pa 4 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SSe COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Beth Ann Braatz, of the City of Minneapolis, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, being duly sworn, says that on the 2nd day of August, 1993, she served the annexed Separate Answer of Defendant City of Prior Lake on the following parties in this action, by depositing a copy thereof in the U.s. Mail, postage prepaid, in an envelope addressed to the respective attorneys of record herein at their respective addresses as shown below: Daniel J. Young Bologna & Young 2100 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431. r! /~! ,1 t1 l/'L A ;-/ (; t/nVL ~.i\ Be Ann Braatz ~(Ct0.,/( ) U (:) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd day of August, 1993. (1 ~. Q (,. (' - . . _1 I~ , Notar~ic J ~,. ..NAY~A*.OiYL"'Y~ci^uGHFEv~-I. NOTMY PUBlIC-MNESOTA HElfiEPIN COUNTY My ea.. EPas Oct. 20, 1997 .~.......,,~N>>~..."................H~""~V,,_~V.