#MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL MISSOURI CODE#
#MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL MISSOURI TRIAL#
#MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL MISSOURI SERIES#

The trial court granted a preliminary writ, but then dissolved that order and granted Collins' motion to dismiss. Later that month, Pershing filed this petition for writ of mandamus to compel Collins to place its application on the City Plan Commission's agenda. In November 1989, respondent Collins, Director of City Development, informed Pershing that he removed Pershing's application from the City Plan Commission's agenda because it had been declared in default. This amendment would have extended the time of performance of Phases II through V. In October 1989, Pershing filed yet another application for approval of amendments to the Redevelopment Plan and Contract. ' The report of the City Development Commission, upon which the resolution was based, stated that the scope of the hearing did not 'extend beyond the question of default in Phase I.' In December 1988, the City Council passed a formal resolution declaring Pershing to 'be in default of its duties and obligations under the development plan and contract, as amended. Pershing appeared, objecting that the proceedings were illegal because the Union Station suit had already been filed without the required hearing.

In November 1988, the application for hearing was taken up. In October 1988, after the Union Station suit had been filed, the City applied for a hearing before the City Plan Commission on the issue of default.

#MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL MISSOURI CODE#

Pershing maintains this suit was filed in violation of the Code of General Ordinances of Kansas City ('CGOKC') 36.25. In September 1988, apparently frustrated by what it considered to be Pershing's lack of progress, the City filed suit against Pershing alleging a default under the terms of the Development Plan and Contract regarding the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Union Station. These amendments generally modified construction schedules and placement of buildings. Between May 1978 and January 1985, Pershing asked the City Council to approve four amendments to the original contract. In December 1974, the City Council passed an ordinance approving Pershing's plan and authorized the Director of Finance to contract with Pershing. In July 1974, Pershing submitted to the City Clerk a redevelopment plan for the area located generally north of Pershing Road between Grand Avenue and Broadway.

#MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL MISSOURI SERIES#

Pershing's petition for mandamus is one of the final acts in a complicated series of acts between the City of Kansas City and Pershing. Although, Riederer is a named party-appellant, he has no part in this appeal. Furthermore, the right petitioner seeks to enforce must be clearly established and presently existing. In general, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy effective to compel performance of a particular act by one who has an unequivocal duty to perform the act. This litigation grows out of Pershing's contract with Kansas City (City) to redevelop Union Station and the surrounding area. The convoluted factual and procedural posture of this case merits an introductory explanation. The appellant-relator, Pershing Square Redevelopment Corp., ('Pershing') appeals the trial court's dismissal of its petition for writ of mandamus.Īlthough Pershing raises several points on appeal, the dispositive issue is whether the trial court properly granted the respondent's motion to dismiss. Louise Ellingsworth, Kansas City, for defendant-respondent.īefore LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and SHANGLER and MANFORD, JJ. March, Kansas City, for relator-appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. Robert COLLINS, Director of City Development, City of Kansas City, Missouri, Defendant-Respondent. Albert RIEDERER, Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney, ex rel., PERSHING SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Relator-Appellant,

Motion to dismiss appeal missouri