Agenda Packets - 1999/04/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Isar-31-99 01:09pm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-098 P.05/08 F-823 c0981989 Court of Appeals Page 2 of 5 discretion and reverse FACTS Appellant Metropolitan Council (MC) is a public corporation responsible for coordinating and planning the metropolitan area; appellant Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is a public corporation with jurisdiction over airports. Respondent City of Mounds View (City)is located south of the Anoka County-Blaine Airport(Airport), a reliever airport for the main international airport. In 1996, the legislature enacted Minn. Stat. §473.608, subd. 27, requiring MAC to develop and implement a plan to divert the maximum feasible number of general aviation operations from the main international airport to reliever airports MAC accordingly submitted to MC a plan outlining Airport's future and recommended extending Airport's east-west runway from 4,000 feet to 5,000 feet. City then brought an action against MAC and moved for a temporary injunction requiring MAC to withdraw from MC's consideration plans for extending the runway.The motion was granted. MC intervened and joins MAC in this appeal from the temporary injunction. ISSUE Did the district court abuse its discretion in granting an injunction without a showing of irreparable harm? ANALYSIS A decision on whether to grant a temporary injunction is left to the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on review absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Carl Bo!ander& Sons v. City of Minneapolis, 502 N.W.2d 203, 209 (Minn. I993). A party seeking an injunction must first establish that the legal remedy is inadequate and that the injunction is necessary to prevent great and irreparable injury. Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds &Assocs., 278 N.W.2d 81, 92 (Minn. 1979). The moving party must show that the particular relief requested will prevent the certain occurrence of an event that will cause significant injury—harm that cannot be redressed by a legal remedy.Ecolab,Inc. v. Gartland, 537 N.W.2d 291, 294 (Minn. App. 1995). The district court found that, if a court eventually disallowed expansion of the runway, the expenses City will have incurred because MC and MAC planned for the extension of the runway will be "irreparable harm." This finding is contrary to caselaw. Thomas v. Ramberg, 240 Minn. 1, 60 N.W.2d 18 (1953), affirmed the denial of injunctive relief to an employer who sought to enjoin the industrial commission from undertaking to fix minimum wages for certain employees. The supreme court rejected the employer's argument that the commission might have exceeded its jurisdiction in acting to establish new minimum wage levels and therefore lacked power to proceed. Problematical damages based on speculation cannot be used to establish irreparable harm as a basis for equitable relief. [The employer]has forcefully pointed out that, if this court were to decide at this time whether the commission had exceeded its jurisdiction and in the event that it should find a lack of jurisdiction,much time and expense would be saved by putting a halt to the proceedings. This argument,though appealing, is not sufficient. It is clear that costs http:/lw ww.couns.state.mn.us/opinions/coa/current/c0981989.html 3/31/99