Originally Posted by milehighmike
IMO, a law was passed that negated the injunction or any other action contemplated by any local authority. I don't see, as I've posted before, why anyone has to screw around with this court action any longer. JJ can issue whatever direction/order he wants, and Golden/sCARE can file as many court actions as they want. They will have no effect under the Midnight Law. If I were LCG, all I'd want to do is have the case closed (for nothing more than a "good feeling") and I wouldn't waste any more time with JJ, Golden, or sCARE.
So, unless I'm being too simplistic about this situation, could someone please explain where my thinking may be awry?
The entire thing is largely a degree of legal "cleanup". Here are some key points from LCG's petition:
From the Introduction:
Given the preemptive effect of the Act, this Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs' Complaint under Rule 106(a)(4). Moreover, the Act renders this case moot, which strips Plaintiffs of standing to maintain it. The Court, therefore, should dismiss this case and lift the stay entered on March 26, 2004.
From Section III:
To be clear, Lake Cedar files this motion to dismiss to put an end to litigation in which it is a named defendant, and which is no longer relevant to the underlying issue of tower construction. However, based on the terms of the stay order and the preemptive force of the federal Act, the dismissal of this suit is not a condition precedent to Lake Cedar's exercise of its federal rights. Moreover, this Court's stay can not be expanded to reach Lake Cedar's construction activities without running afoul of the jurisdictional and preemption problems identified below, and without violating Lake Cedar's rights under the Act.
From Section V-D:
As explained above, the Court's stay order operates only on the County and does not, and could not, preclude Lake Cedar from exercising its independent federal right to construct the proposed tower. As a matter of judicial administration, however, we note that a dismissal of this case also requires the Court to vacate the stay, regardless of its limited effect.