|
|
1-2111-10535-3 1-2111-10765-3 |
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE CITY OF ST. PAUL
|
In Re the License of the St. Paul Firearms Co., 634 Snelling Avenue North, St. Paul, Minnesota,
and
In Re the License Application of the St. Paul Firearms Co., 634 Snelling Avenue North, St. Paul, Minnesota |
ORDER |
By a letter dated October 3, 1996, the Hamline-Midway Neighborhood Stability Coalition ("the Coalition") objected to a consolidation of the above matters. Replies to this objection were filed by the City of St. Paul on October 16, 1996, and by the St. Paul Firearms Company (SPFC) on October 15, 1996.
The Coalition is represented in the license revocation matter by Richard D. Snyder, Esq., Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., 1100 International Centre, 900 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, and in the license application matter by Thomas Darling, Esq., Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A., 3400 City Center, 33 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-3706. SPFC is represented by David Feinwachs, Esq., 2227 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55114. The City of St. Paul is represented by Virginia D. Palmer, Assistant City Attorney, 400 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102, and Philip B. Byrne, Assistant City Attorney, 400 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota 55114.
Based upon the filings and for the reasons set out in the following Memorandum,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The hearing in the license revocation matter (OAH Docket No. 1-2111-10535-3) is continued indefinitely.
2. The motion for a continuance of the hearing in the license application matter (OAH Docket No. 1-2111-10765-3) is denied.
|
Dated this |
18th |
day of |
October |
1996. |
|
|
|
GEORGE A. BECK |
|
Administrative Law Judge
|
MEMORANDUM
Based upon the request of the City, the Administrative Law Judge consolidated the above two matters without soliciting the opinions of all parties. The Coalition then indicated that its view was that the license revocation hearing should be continued indefinitely since it believes the outcome of the hearing on the new license application may moot the question of whether the previous license is invalid. The Applicant agrees with this position. Mr. Darling, on behalf of the Coalition in the license application hearing, also opposed consolidation and suggested that his client intended to initiate court action seeking a declaration that the Applicant is presently selling firearms without a license. Mr. Darling agrees that the court action may obviate the need for a hearing in the license revocation matter. The City of St. Paul suggested that whether the two matters are heard together, or the license revocation rescheduled for a separate date, that the license revocation matter be scheduled and heard rather than indefinitely continued.
In light of the continued uncertainty of the effect of the decision of the Court of Appeals in the license revocation matter, and the intention of the Coalition to proceed in court in that regard, and since the application case may render the revocation matter moot, it appears most reasonable to continue this matter indefinitely. Although it is continued indefinitely, the matter will be promptly rescheduled, depending upon judicial developments. It seems advisable, however, at this point, that further resources should not be unnecessarily directed towards resolution of the revocation matter since further action in that regard may be unnecessary. These two cases are therefore no longer consolidated for hearing and the license revocation matter is indefinitely continued.
In its October 11, 1996 letter from Mr. Darling, the Coalition requested a two-month continuance of the license application hearing which is scheduled for November 4, 1996. It argues that this continuance is necessary to enable the Coalition and its counsel to adequately prepare for the hearing. It suggests that discovery will be necessary prior to the hearing in order for the hearing to be meaningful. This continuance request was objected to by the Applicant. It argues that it has suffered delay which is causing it economic hardship. It suggests that it applied appropriately for a new license consistent with the permanent ordinance adopted by the City of St. Paul and argues that it is entitled to a prompt resolution of this matter. The City states that it believes that this matter should proceed as scheduled since the Applicant has a significant interest in settling the question of the new license as soon as possible. It points out that the Coalition has been involved in the licensing process from the beginning and suggests that its decision to change counsel on the application case is not a sufficient reason for the continuance requested.
Under St. Paul City Ordinance § 310.05(i), a continuance on a hearing may be granted upon a showing of good cause by the party making the request. This licensing matter has a substantial and lengthy history. The Coalition has participated closely in that process. The Notice of Hearing in this matter is dated October 1, 1996, and a copy was sent to the Coalition as well as its counsel, Mr. Snyder. Additionally, the parties likely were aware prior to that date that a hearing on the license application would occur. A license applicant is entitled to a prompt resolution of its case unless good cause is established for delay. In this case the Coalition has made only a general suggestion that its counsel needs more time to prepare for the hearing and a general assertion that discovery is necessary. This showing is inadequate to support a continuance. Over two weeks remain before the hearing at this point. Given the history of this matter, extensive discovery would not seem to be a necessity. Mr. Darling will also undoubtedly have the benefit of Mr. Snyder's experience and knowledge concerning this matter. This matter should therefore proceed to hearing as scheduled.
G.A.B.