An experienced Minneapolis, Minnesota attorney knows that sometimes a party wants to get an injunction to stop the other party from doing something while a lawsuit is pending. Rule 65 sets forth the procedure for obtaining temporary restraining orders and temporary injunctions, the purpose of which is to preserve the rights of parties pending determination of the litigation.
What are the three different types of injunctions in Minnesota?
The first type of injunction is called a temporary restraining order (TRO) and it is usually presented to a judge on an emergency basis (meaning the other party that will be affected by the TRO doesn’t need to know that its rights are being affected). The TRO is designed to maintain the current state of the parties relationship until a more formal hearing is held in about 10-20 days. The idea of the TRO is that the party seeking an injunction wants to keep Humpty Dumpty on the wall and preserve his condition and without the judge granting the injunction, Humpty Dumpty will fall and he cannot be put back together again. Importantly, although the other party does not need to know about the TRO, the filing party must make reasonable efforts to try to notify them. Also, a formal lawsuit must be started, an affidavit setting forth the basis for the order must be attested to by a real person addressing the “5 Dahlberg factors” must be sworn out.
If the judge denies the TRO, the restraining order is not granted, but the lawsuit still moves forward.
If the judge grants the TRO, the judge will schedule a hearing in about 10-20 days for a hearing on the second type of injunction, called the temporary injunction; this is where the parties will have a mini-trial to determine if the party seeking the injunction can actually satisfy the 5 Dahlberg factors and whether the injunction should stay in place until a full trial is held on the matter. There are five factors a court needs to consider in determining the propriety of granting a TRO or Temporary Injunction, See Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 137 N.W.2d 314, 321-322 (1965); Eakman v. Brutger, 285 N.W.2d 95 (Minn.1979). A district court must consider five factors to determine whether a temporary injunction is warranted: (1) the nature and relationship of the parties; (2) the balance of relative harm between the parties; (3) the likelihood of success on the merits; (4) public policy considerations; and (5) any administrative burden involving judicial supervision and enforcement. Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75, 137 N.W.2d 314, 321-22 (1965). The party seeking a temporary injunction bears the burden of demonstrating that injunctive relief is appropriate. See Angeion Corp., 615 N.W.2d at 434.
Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. Practice 65.03: “No temporary restraining order or temporary injunction shall be granted except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Also, Minn. Gen. R. Practice 135 addresses minimum security requirements and the applicant shall give a bond in the sum of at least $2,000.
Only after a full trial on the merits of the matter (or upon a summary judgment motion) will a court issue the third type of injunction, called a permanent injunction.