State College developers are trying a legal squeeze play.

Through the court Friday, attorney for FAMvest tried to get Muncy Township and its board of supervisors’ signatures on what it claims is an approved subdivision allowing them to continue with plans for a Bass Pro Shops Outpost.

A legal brief filed in Lycoming County Court asserts the township officials must, “by statute and ordinance, sign the approved subdivision.”

To date, Supervisors Terri Lauchle, chair, and Denise Artley have not signed the plan. A third supervisor, Heath Ohnmeiss, has been on a post on Facebook showing his support of the Bass Pro.

FAMvest, through attorney Nicholas Pennington, Stevens & Lee PC, King of Prussia, filed the brief in support of a motion for what’s known as “peremptory judgment.” In legal terms, that is a final, absolute command issued by a court requiring a party to take a specific action or correcting a clear error, usually without requiring a full trial. It indicates a decision that cannot be questioned or changed and often arises when a party’s right to relief is clear.

The developer commenced this “mandamus” action on March 24, against the township and its board of supervisors, he cited in the brief.

It sought to compel the defendants to perform a “purely ministerial duty” mandated by law – execution of the developer’s already approved preliminary/final plan showing minor add-on subdivision of lands of FAMvest – Lycoming Mall.

FAMvest asserts that approval of the plan was granted, all conditions of approval were satisfied, and the defendants’ continued refusal to sign the plan violates both the state Municipalities Planning Code and the township’s “Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO).

Several steps have since occurred in courts, including an appeal before the Commonwealth Court.

However, in this latest brief, FAMvest claims it has no other adequate remedy, claiming that execution of this subdivision plan is a statutory prerequisite to recording, and recording is a prerequisite to development.

Moreover, money damages cannot substitute for execution of an approved plan, nor is there any administrative mechanism available to compel the township’s compliance, Pennington states.

“Defendants owe a mandatory, ministerial duty imposed by statute and ordinance to execute the plaintiffs’ approved plan,” he wrote.

The township’s post-approval objections are “time-barred, legally irrelevant, and incapable of negating a nondiscretionary obligation,” Pennington asserts.

In the brief, he “respectfully requests the court to enter peremptory judgment compelling the township to execute plaintiffs’ approved plan without further delay.”

As for their legal representative, former township board Solicitor Joseph F. Orso III, cited “irreconcilable differences regarding legal strategy” as a reason for his departure as that board’s solicitor, which will be finalized in a hearing Wednesday.