temporary restraining order - Finance & Commerce

More documents

Recommendations

Info

temporary or permanent injunction. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.01; Bio-Line, Inc. v. Burman, 404 N.W.2d 318, 320 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). A temporary injunction’s purpose is to preserve the status quo until the case is decided on the merits. Miller v. Foley, 317 N.W.2d 710, 712 (Minn. 1982); Pickerign v. Pasco Marketing, Inc., 228 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Minn. 1975). The decision whether to grant a temporary restraining order or a temporary injunction is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Eakman v. Brutger, 285 N.W.2d 95, 97 (Minn. 1979). The Court considers five factors when deciding whether to issue a temporary restraining order or a temporary injunction: 1. the relationship between the parties before the dispute; 2. the harm the Plaintiff will suffer if relief is denied, compared with the harm inflicted on the Defendant if the injunction is issued; 3. the likelihood that one party or the other will prevail on the merits; 4. the public interest involved, if any; and 5. the administrative burdens involved to enforce the relief requested. Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 137 N.W.2d 314, 321-322 (Minn. 1965); see also Bio- Line, 404 N.W.2d at 321; M.G.M. Liquor Warehouse Int’l, Inc. v. Forsland, 371 N.W.2d 75, 77 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). These well-known five factors, often called the “Dahlberg Test,” are not applied mechanically by Minnesota’s courts. “Likelihood of success on the merits” is the “factor of greatest concern” when analyzing the Dahlberg Test. Ecolab, Inc. v. Gartland, 537 N.W.2d 291, 294 (Minn. 1995); see also Pacific Equip. & Irrigation, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 519 N.W.2d 911, 915 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994) (likelihood of success on the merits is “key” factor). Federal courts construing the federal counterpart to Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.01 have held that the “likelihood of the success on the merits” and the “balance of harm” factors receive primary N:\PL\85155\85155-001\1607234.docx 6
consideration and the other three factors only receive secondary consideration. See, e.g., S&M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co., 959 F.2d 97, 98 (8 th Cir. 1992) (applying equivalent federal test for injunctive relief). Moreover, at this early stage, the Court should focus on the need to maintain the status quo, so that the matter can be fully presented and decided on the merits. Pacific Equip. & Irrigation, Inc., 519 N.W.2d at 915. Preserving the status quo means preventing the expenditure of funds and the performance of work on the Project. Plaintiffs will reorder the discussion of the Dahlberg factors so that the factor of greatest importance – likelihood of success on the merits – is analyzed first. Thereafter, Plaintiffs will analyze the balance of harms, the second most important Dahlberg factor, and lastly, they will analyze the other three factors because of their secondary importance. 1. Plaintiffs will prevail on the merits. a. Competitive procurement is mandatory on public contracts. Under the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law, Minn. Stat. § 471.345, municipalities like the City must generally engage in a competitive process before entering a contract that exceeds $100,000. A “contract” under the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law is defined as “an agreement entered into by a municipality for the sale or purchase of supplies, materials, equipment or the rental thereof, or the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or personal property.” Minn. Stat. § 471.345 subd. 2. An agreement to construct a stadium falls within that definition. bidding. The most common competitive procurement method used by municipalities is sealed If the amount of the contract is estimated to exceed $100,000, sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice in the manner and subject to the requirements of the law governing contracts by the particular municipality or class thereof. N:\PL\85155\85155-001\1607234.docx 7
Page 1 and 2: STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT C
Page 3 and 4: Stat. § 116J.433, governing those
Page 5: On September 13, 2012, the Minnesot
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 and 18: “proper challenges to the bid-let
Page 19 and 20: St. Paul chose to violate well-esta

temporary restraining order - Finance & Commerce

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

Delete template?

Save as template?