The lawsuit to halt the Duluth school district's long-range facilities plan could go to trial Oct. 15, depending on how 6th District Judge Eric Hylden rules on several motions.
Hylden set the date near the end of a 1.5-hour-long hearing in Duluth this morning where he heard arguments on several motions, including the plaintiffs' request for a temporary injunction to halt work not already begun.
Sue Torgerson, the school district's attorney, asked that Hylden, if he grants the injunction, require the five plaintiffs to put up a surety bond of between $10 million and $20 million to cover costs caused by the delay.
Torgerson argued that the delay from an injunction could cause tens of millions of dollars in damages and would affect people and contracts not included in the original lawsuit.
In May, Hylden ordered the plaintiffs, four of whom have ties to the anti-red plan group Let Duluth Vote, to post a $100,000 surety bond by June 30. If they miss the deadline, the case against Independent School District 709 and Johnson Controls could be dismissed.
ADVERTISEMENT
Craig Hunter, the plaintiff's attorney, said that the $100,000 bond is large enough for five taxpayers working to protect the rights of the school district's taxpayers as a whole.
Harry Welty, one of the plaintiffs, expressed confidence after the hearing that his group would raise $100,000 by the deadline.
"If he leaves the bond at $100,000, we will go to court in October," Welty said. "If he raises it, it will be the School Board election that will probably determine what happens next."
During today's hearing, school district attorney Tim Palmatier argued that the case should be dismissed because, among other reasons, the plaintiffs don't have legal standing to sue. These five do not represent the taxpayers as a whole -- the School Board does, Palmatier said. The five are trying to overturn a legal contract to stop a long-range facilities plan they oppose.
Hunter argued the court has the right to set aside contracts that run counter to public interest. The plaintiffs say the court should void the contract between the school district and Johnson Controls because the district agreed to hire Johnson Controls before agreeing on a price for implementing the red plan.
The district maintains that neither party could have known the price when Johnson Controls was hired because the red plan hadn't been developed. The district reserved the right to walk away from the deal if a fair price could not be reached, the school district's attorney argues.
Hylden didn't rule on the motions today, nor did he indicate when he would. In May, he ruled on other motions within a week of hearing arguments.
