Laserfiche WebLink
'- <br />requirements of the MLRA; and remanding the case to the Board for reconsideration in <br />full compliance with the requirements of the MLRA. <br />FOURTH CLALVI FOR RELIEF <br />45. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 44 as it the same were set forth <br />herein. <br />46. In the Agreement between Robco and the City, Robco provided the City with <br />the right to comment upon the New Application before the Board acted upon the applica- <br />tion. The agreement was referenced in paragraph 14 and a copy is attached as Exhibit D. <br />47. Robco breached its agreement with the City by failing to provide the City an <br />opportunity to review and comment on or criticize the New Application before the Board <br />acted on the application and issued the permit. <br />48. The City performed all obligations required of it by the Agreement between <br />Robco and the City, by providing the Board with written confirmation that the City did <br />not object to Robco mining the area known as the Chieftain South Mine. <br />49. Robco's material breach of the Agreement deprived the City of the opportu- <br />nity to comment on or object to the New Application, thereby damaging the City in an <br />amount to be determined at trial. <br />19HEREFORE, Plaintiff asks for a judgment in its favor and against Defendant <br />Robco in an amount to be determined at trial, for its costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, <br />and such further relief as the Court deems proper. <br />FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF <br />50. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 49 as if the same were set forth <br />herein. <br />51. Robco deliberately and fraudulently misrepresented to the City during con- <br />tract negotiations that the City would have an opportunity to comment upon or object to <br />the New Application pursuant to the statutory procedures outlined in the MLRB. <br />52. Robco deliberately deceived the City in proceeding to discuss the New Appli- <br />cation with the Board outside the knowledge of the City, and fraudulently withheld from <br />the City notice that the Board had rescheduled consideration of the New Application, <br />both breaches of its contractual duty to provide the City with the right to review and <br />comment upon the New Application prior to the issuance of a permit by the Board. <br />53. Defendant Robco made false representations of past or present facts. <br />54. Those facts were material. <br />55. The Defendant made the representations knowing them to be false or the <br />Defendants were aware that they did not know whether they were true or false. <br />-7- <br />