MOTION TO STRIKE Sample Clauses

MOTION TO STRIKE. In this Court, the County filed a brief contending, for the first time, that to be valid a DRRA must be supported by enhanced public benefits, and arguing that the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ DRRA does not require any enhanced public benefit, and, thus, is invalid.7 On brief, the County also asserts that “the absence of an enhanced public benefit has a particularly acute impact on the reserved legislative powers of the County in the present case because the scope of the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇[] DRRA exceeds that authorized by” the DRRA statute. The County maintains that Section 8.1A of the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ DRRA—i.e., the “freeze provision”—exceeds the County’s authority under the DRRA statute. Petitioners filed in this Court a motion to strike the County’s brief and a memorandum in support, contending, in pertinent part, that the County is judicially estopped from arguing that the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ DRRA is invalid and that the County’s contention concerning the freeze provision of the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ DRRA is not properly before the Court. Specifically, Petitioners assert that, in the circuit court and the Court of Special Appeals, the County contended that the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ DRRA is valid; as such, Petitioners maintain that the County is judicially estopped from now changing its position and arguing 7Previously, only ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ advanced this argument, challenging the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ DRRA’s validity in the circuit court and the Court of Special Appeals. By contrast, the County argued in support of the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ DRRA’s validity until proceedings in this Court. that the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ DRRA is invalid. Petitioners also contend that any issue as to the freeze provision is not before this Court because the issue was not raised in a petition for a writ of certiorari or a cross-petition. The County filed an opposition to the motion to strike, contending that judicial estoppel applies only where three circumstances are present, including where a party takes a factual position that is inconsistent with a position that it took in previous litigation. The County argues that it has not taken a factual position that is inconsistent with one that it took in previous litigation, and asserts that its change in position in the same litigation relates to the legal requirements governing the validity of a DRRA. The County maintains that it “raised the discussion of the freeze provision of the [▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇] DRRA, not to create a separate issue for this Court to decide, but for the purpose of showing that the prejudice to the ...