temporary restraining order - Finance & Commerce

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4. Granting injunctive relief will not cause the Court administrative burden. In this case, there are no administrative burdens if the Court issues a Temporary Restraining Order. The Court would only have to issue one <strong>order</strong>: Enjoin performance of the contract. Violations of such an <strong>order</strong>, if any, can be easily detected and offending parties are subject to sanction. This Dahlberg Factor is not a significant factor in the Court’s analysis. Nonetheless, there are no administrative burdens for the Court to be concerned about and this issue should not be any impediment to the issuance of an injunction. B. The Court is empowered to require only a nominal security bond to preserve the ability of bidders to police public procurements. The Court should require only a nominal bond or cash deposit. Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 65.03 requires applicants for an injunction to post a security bond or other security to mitigate the defendant’s damages if the injunction is ultimately found to be improvidently granted. The amount of the bond or security, however, is in the full discretion of the court, subject only to a $2,000 minimum. Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.03 (“in such sum as the court deems proper”); Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 135 (setting $2,000 minimum); Paradata of Minnesota, Inc. v. Fox, 356 N.W.2d 852, 855 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) (“The trial judge has wide discretion is setting the amount of the bond.”). In this case, as discussed above, any damage to the City caused by the injunction would be minimal. Moreover, any injury claimed by the City resulting from any delays could have easily been avoided had the City followed Minnesota law. Any damages alleged by St. Paul are self-inflicted. This Court should reject any argument by the City (or even Ryan should it seek to intervene in this lawsuit) that delays caused by an injunction are worthy of recognition by the Court. N:\PL\85155\85155-001\1607234.docx 18
St. Paul chose to violate well-established public procurement law, so the Court should reject any request for a bond or security that is any amount more than the two thousand dollar minimum specified by the General Rules of Practice. The City cannot be allowed to illegally award a contract and then claim that action insulates it from injunctive relief. See United Tech., 624 F.Supp. at 190 (“The Court declines to reach the perverse result that the County’s wrongful actions, if any existed, should inure to its benefit by protecting it from an otherwise justified injunction.”). Further, imposition of a large security bond would violate the stated policy of the Minnesota Supreme Court that challenges to the public procurement process should be encouraged to promote the transparency and integrity of the award of public contracts. See Telephone Associates, 364 N.W.2d at 382-83. If a large bond is required, it will the stifle legitimate challenges to illegal procurement practices for no other reason than cost. dispute. Those facts are: Finally, the key facts in this case are simple and should not be subject to any 1. The City entered into a design-build contract for the Project with Ryan. 2. The value of that contract exceeds $100,000. 3. The City did not engage in either sealed competitive bidding or a best-value process as described in Minn. Stat. § 16.C.28 before awarding the contract to Ryan. This case hinges on statutory interpretation of the bonding statute authorizing the Capital Project Grants, rather than determination of disputed facts. That means that the likelihood of an improvidently granted injunction, which is what the injunction bond is designed to protect defendants against, is very low. The court should consequently set only a nominal bond. N:\PL\85155\85155-001\1607234.docx 19
Page 1 and 2: STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT C
Page 3 and 4: Stat. § 116J.433, governing those
Page 5 and 6: On September 13, 2012, the Minnesot
Page 7 and 8: consideration and the other three f
Page 9 and 10: Aff. Exhibit H). The legislature de
Page 11 and 12: perform one or more or all of the f
Page 13 and 14: was not authorized to give a multi-
Page 15 and 16: City failed to test that assumption
Page 17: “proper challenges to the bid-let

temporary restraining order - Finance & Commerce

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?