CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUDGE POSTON ______

City of Minneapolis, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Court File No.: 27-CV-06-11454 Plaintiff, v. JOINT ANSWER

Minneapolis Police Relief Association and Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association,

Defendants. ______

Defendants Minneapolis Police Relief Association (MPRA) and Minneapolis

Firefighters Relief Association (MFRA) (or collectively Defendants) for their Answer to

Plaintiff’s Complaint state as follows:

1. Deny each and every matter and allegation contained in the Complaint except as admitted or explained herein.

2. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint,

Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint and they are therefore denied.

3. Admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

4. Admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

5. Admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

1 6. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, admit that in early 1995 the City commenced litigation against the MPRA and the MFRA and other parties but deny that Plaintiff’s paraphrasing and/or interpretation of the basis for that litigation is correct and affirmatively asserts that the Complaint in Hennepin

County Court File No. MC 95-2169 is a document that speaks for itself and therefore deny any allegations that are inconsistent with the Complaint.

7. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, admit that the parties in the ligation referenced in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint entered into a negotiated settlement of disputed issues which was incorporated in a Stipulation and Order for Dismissal with Prejudice and approved by the Court. With respect to any other allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, deny that Plaintiff’s paraphrasing and/or interpretation as to the scope of the Settlement Agreement is correct and affirmatively assert that this Settlement Agreement speaks for itself and therefore deny any allegations that are inconsistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement as they are stated therein.

8. With respect to the allegations against the MFRA, the MPRA is a separate legal entity and has no knowledge regarding any allegations specifically brought against the MFRA and therefore denies any and all allegations contained in Paragraphs 7 through

12 of the Complaint.

9. With respect to the allegations against MFRA contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, MFRA admits that the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) issued its

Management Letter to the MFRA for the year ended December 31, 2003 but denies that

Plaintiff’s paraphrasing and/or interpretation of the contents of the OSA’s Management

2 Letter is correct and affirmatively asserts that the OSA’s Management Letter speaks for itself and therefore denies any allegations that are inconsistent with the OSA’s

Management Letter as it is written.

10. With respect to the allegations against MFRA contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, MFRA admits that in October 2005, the OSA issued its Management

Letter to the MFRA for the year ended December 31, 2004 but denies that Plaintiff’s paraphrasing and/or interpretation of the contents of the OSA’s Management Letter is correct and affirmatively asserts that the OSA’s Management Letter speaks for itself and therefore denies any allegations that are inconsistent with the OSA’s Management Letter as it is written.

11. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, the

MFRA is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegation as to what the City has “learned” and therefore denies the same and denies any and all other allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

12. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint

MFRA admits that the City is alleging that MFRA has violated the 1995 Settlement

Agreement but denies that MFRA has done so and denies any and all other allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.

13. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint,

MFRA denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11.

14. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 and its subparts a through i of the Complaint, MFRA denies any and all allegations contained in

Paragraph 12 and its subparts a through i of the Complaint.

3 15. With respect to the allegations against the MPRA, the MFRA is a separate legal entity and has no knowledge regarding any allegations specifically brought against the MPRA and therefore denies any and all allegations contained in Paragraphs 13 through 18 of the Complaint.

16. With respect to the allegations against MPRA contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, MPRA admits that the OSA issued its Management Letter to the MPRA for the year ended December 31, 2003 but denies that Plaintiff’s paraphrasing and/or interpretation of the contents of the OSA’s Management Letter is correct and affirmatively asserts that the OSA’s Management Letter speaks for itself and therefore denies any allegations that are inconsistent with the OSA’s Management Letter as it is written.

17. With respect to the allegations against MPRA contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, MPRA admits that in November 2005, the OSA issued its Management

Letter to the MPRA for the year ended December 31, 2004 but denies that Plaintiff’s paraphrasing and/or interpretation of the contents of the OSA’s Management Letter is correct and affirmatively asserts that the OSA’s Management Letter speaks for itself and therefore denies any allegations that are inconsistent with the OSA’s Management Letter as it is written.

18. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, the MPRA is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegation as to what the City has “learned” or “believes” and therefore denies the same and denies any and all other allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.

4 19. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint

MPRA admits that the City is alleging that MPRA has violated the 1995 Settlement

Agreement but denies that MPRA has done so and denies any and all other allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint.

20. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint,

MPRA denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 17.

21. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 and its subparts a through h of the Complaint, MPRA denies any and all allegations contained in

Paragraph 18 and its subparts a through h of the Complaint.

22. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the

Complaint, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 19.

23. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the

Complaint, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 20.

24. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the

Complaint, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 21.

25. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the

Complaint, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 22.

26. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the

Complaint, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 23.

27. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the

Complaint, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24.

28. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of the

Complaint, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 25.

5 29. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of the

Complaint, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 26.

30. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of the

Complaint, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 27.

31. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the

Complaint, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 28.

32. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the

Complaint, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 29.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

A. MPRA is not liable for the actions of MFRA.

B. MFRA is not liable for the actions of MPRA.

C. This court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

D. Plaintiff’s claims against either the MPRA or the MFRA are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

E. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

F. Plaintiff failed to take reasonable action to avoid or mitigate the alleged detriment or damages.

G. Plaintiff does not have a right to attorney fees in this action.

H. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.

I. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused, contributed to, or brought about by

Plaintiff’s own actions or the actions of those over whom neither Defendant exercises any right of control and for whose actions neither defendant is responsible.

J. Plaintiff by its actions has waived any claim it might have had against either

6 Defendant.

K. Plaintiff failed to join indispensible parties to this action.

L. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by equitable estoppel.

M. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by collateral estoppel.

N. Plaintiff’s claims are brought for an improper purpose and to harass these

Defendants.

WHEREFOR, Defendants MPRA and MFRA pray for an Order of this court as follows:

a. Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint on its merits with prejudice.

b. Awarding Defendants MPRA and MFRA all its cost and disbursements as

allowed by law.

c. For such other relief as this court deems just and equitable.

Date: RICE, MICHELS & WALTHER, LLP

By:______Brian F. Rice Minn. Atty. Reg.#14468X Karin E. Peterson Minn. Atty. Reg. # 185048 10 Second Street N.E, Ste. 206 Minneapolis, MN 55413 (612) 676-2300

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS MINNEAPOLIS POLICE RELIEF ASSOCIATION AND MINNEAPOLIS FIREFIGHTERS RELIEF ASSOCIATION

7

KLAUSNER & KAUFMAN, P.A Robert D. Klausner Fla. Atty. Reg. # 244082 Stuart A. Kaufman Fla. Atty. Reg. # 979211 10059 N.W. 1st Court Plantation, FL. 33324 (954) 916-1202

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MINNEAPOLIS FIREFIGHTERS RELIF ASSOCIATION

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.211, subd. 2.

Brian F. Rice

8