Consolidated Finality Partners LLC, the corporate entity in advanced discussions to purchase and comprehensively destroy the commonwealth of New Newmanton, has filed a formal legal objection to the ongoing Third Street sinkhole litigation, arguing that the lawsuit is "duplicative of outcomes already in progress" and should be dismissed on grounds of redundancy.

The filing, submitted Monday to the New Newmanton District Court, is three pages long. Two of those pages are a single footnote disputing the plaintiff's use of the word "permanent" to describe property damage.

THE SINKHOLE LAWSUIT

The sinkhole, now in its third month of existence at approximately 40 feet in diameter and a depth the Public Works Department continues to describe as "significant," has been the subject of litigation brought by eleven Third Street property owners seeking a combined $2.3 million in damages. The case had been proceeding on a standard schedule until Consolidated Finality Partners LLC — which, as The New Newmanton News first reported, described its intentions toward the commonwealth in a one-sentence press release as "a productive and terminal relationship with the New Newmanton community" — requested and was granted intervening party status on the basis that it has "a material interest in the disposition of all New Newmanton assets, contingent on closing."

---

"Our client's position is straightforward," said a statement attributed to the law firm Harwick, Brenn & Concluding LLP, which represents Consolidated Finality Partners LLC. "You cannot seek compensation for diminished property value from a property that is scheduled, subject to regulatory approval, to not exist. The court's time is valuable. So is ours. These are not the same amount of time, but they are both amounts."

CITY RESPONSE

City Attorney's Office spokesperson Denise Farrow said the office was "reviewing the filing carefully" and would respond "within the standard timeframe, assuming the standard timeframe remains applicable." When asked whether the destruction timeline affected the legal calendar, Farrow said that question had been referred to Public Works Director Alan Marsh. Marsh said he was monitoring the situation, which is consistent with previous statements made by Marsh, as reported in this paper, in which he said his department was monitoring "all of them, given the circumstances."

COALITION REACTION

Gerald Voss of the Newtonist Coalition, who had previously referred a related procedural question to the city attorney's office — which, as The News reported, referred it back to him — said the intervention was "philosophically elegant" and that Isaac Newton (not that one) would have found it "clarifying, in the final sense." Voss had earlier described the destruction proposal itself as consistent with the Newtonian vision of minimal government "taken to its natural conclusion," which he called "bittersweet."

Brenda Kowalski, reached by phone near the sinkhole, said she had not read the filing but that it sounded "pretty reasonable, if you think about it." Her assessment of the underlying destruction proposal, offered to The News last month, was that it sounded "fine, honestly." The court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion to dismiss.