Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
MSFA Answer and Counterclaim as FILED-V1

MSFA Answer and Counterclaim as FILED-V1

Ratings: (0)|Views: 0|Likes:
Published by Sarah McKenzie
Sports authority's response to Minneapolis Venture's lawsuit.
Sports authority's response to Minneapolis Venture's lawsuit.

More info:

Published by: Sarah McKenzie on Aug 30, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/30/2013

pdf

text

original

 
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURTCOUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTCase Type: Other CivilMinneapolis Venture LLC,Plaintiff,vs.Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority,Defendant.Court File No. 27-CV-13-15247(Judge Ronald L. Abrams)
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM OFMINNESOTA SPORTS FACILITIESAUTHORITYANSWER 
Defendant Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority (“MSFA”), by and for its Answer to Plaintiff Minneapolis Venture LLC’s (“Minneapolis Venture”) Complaint, admits,denies and alleges as follows:1. The MSFA admits on information and belief the allegations contained inParagraph 1.2. The MSFA admits the allegations of Paragraph 2.3. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 3, the MSFA states that it callsfor a legal conclusion. The MSFA denies that Minn. Stat. Ch. 473J “include[s]”Downtown East “in the definition of the Stadium Site.” The MSFA alleges thatDowntown East is located within the boundaries of the area defined as “Stadium site” inMinn. Stat. § 473J.03, subd. 12.4. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 4, the MSFA admits that TedMondale, in his capacity as CEO/Executive Director of the MSFA, sent to Minneapolis
Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court
8/30/2013 10:46:22 AM
Hennepin County Civil, MN
27-CV-13-15247
 
2Venture, on or about February 1, 2013, the letter attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A.The MSFA further alleges that Exhibit A is in writing and speaks for itself, and theMSFA denies that Paragraph 4 is a full or complete summary of the contents of ExhibitA. The MSFA denies any allegations of Paragraph 4 that are contrary to the text of Exhibit A.5. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 5, the MSFA admits that TedMondale sent the letter attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B to Minneapolis Venture onor about May 30, 2013. The MSFA states that Exhibit B is in writing and speaks for itself, and the MSFA denies that Paragraph 5 is a full or complete summary of thecontents of Exhibit B. The MSFA denies any allegations in Paragraph 5 that are contraryto the text of Exhibit B.6. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 6, the MSFA admits that the UseAgreement is a contract originally entered into between the MCDA and the MetropolitanSports Facilities Commission (“Commission”), that the Use Agreement is attached to theComplaint as Exhibit C, and that the second sentence of Paragraph 6 quotes a portion of the Use Agreement.7. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 7, the MSFA admits thatParagraph 7 quotes a portion of Section 2 of the Use Agreement, but denies that itconstitutes a complete or accurate summary of the provisions of the Use Agreementregarding the term and duration of the Use Agreement.
27-CV-13-15247
 
38. The MSFA admits that Paragraph 8 accurately quotes portions of the UseAgreement, but denies that it constitutes a complete summary of the terms of the UseAgreement relating to the term or duration of the Use Agreement.9. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 9, the MSFA admits theallegations of the first two sentences of Paragraph 9 and denies the allegations of the thirdsentence of Paragraph 9.10. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 10, the MSFA admits that ameeting occurred on or about April 18, 2013 between representatives of MinneapolisVenture, the MSFA and the Vikings. The MSFA denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10.11. The MSFA denies the allegations of Paragraph 11, except that the MSFAadmits that Exhibit D contains images that have been published.12. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 12, the MSFA admits that itissued a final environmental impact statement (“EIS”) on or about July 29, 2013. TheMSFA alleges that the EIS is in writing and speaks for itself. The MSFA admits thatDowntown East is mentioned in the EIS and that two alternative plaza configurationsdescribed in the EIS include Downtown East, but the MSFA denies the remainingallegations of Paragraph 12, to the extent they are contrary to or unsupported by the textof the EIS, and specifically denies the final sentence of Paragraph 12.13. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 13, the MSFA alleges thatdiscussions between the MSFA, Ryan Companies and the City of Minneapolis haveincluded discussions concerning the possible allocation of revenues from the Downtown
27-CV-13-15247

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->