Workers' Compensation Recovery6/8/2004
extend Ms. Marvin a job offer or contract for her services after she left WCR." Larson further stated that "BHS would like to continue to work and should be allowed to work with Ms. Marvin in some capacity."
WCR commenced suit against Marvin, asserting breach of loyalty, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contracts, and misappropriation of confidential information. WCR sought both compensatory and injunctive relief. Marvin counterclaimed, requesting compensatory damages for WCR's intentional interference with a business prospect, payment of accrued vacation time and mileage, release of WCR's profit-sharing account, and attorney fees.
The district court granted WCR's motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and scheduled a hearing. On August 15, the district court granted WCR's motion for a temporary injunction, thereby enjoining Marvin from (1) conducting business with BHS for six months, (2) assisting any other party in conducting business with BHS for six months, and (3) representing to BHS that she remained employed by WCR. This appeal follows.
DECISION
A district court has discretion to grant or deny a motion for a temporary injunction, and its decision will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 502 N.W.2d 203, 209 (Minn. 1993). The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until there is an adjudication of the case on the merits. Miller v. Foley, 317 N.W.2d 710, 712 (Minn. 1982). Because an injunction is an equitable remedy, the party seeking an injunction must establish that there is no adequate legal remedy and that an injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm. Cherne Indus., Inc., v. Grounds & Assoc., Inc., 278 N.W.2d 81, 92 (Minn. 1979). Furthermore, in considering whether to grant or deny a temporary injunction, the district court must consider the five factors set forth in Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75, 137 N.W.2d 314, 321-22 (1965). These factors are (1) the relationship between the parties, (2) the balancing of harms to both parties, (3) the likelihood of success on the merits, (4) public policy considerations, and (5) any administrative burdens. Id.
I.
Marvin argues that the district court abused its discretion by granting an injunction because WCR showed neither irreparable harm nor inadequacy of its legal remedy. To be granted relief, the moving party must offer more than a "mere statement that it is suffering or will suffer irreparable injury." Bolander, 502 N.W.2d at 209. Instead, the moving party must make a prima facie showing of irreparable harm through verified pleadings and affidavits. Thompson v. Barnes, 294 Minn. 528, 533, 200 N.W.2d 921, 925 (1972). In order to be irreparable, the injury must be of such a nature that money alone will not suffice. Morse v. City of Waterville, 458 N.W.2d 728, 729-30 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1990). The failure to demonstrate irreparable harm is, by itself, a sufficient ground to deny an injunction. Id. at 729. We review de novo whether a party has an adequate remedy at law. Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp., 630 N.W.2d 438, 451 (Minn. App. 2001).
In granting the injunction, the district court determined that WCR "may and likely will suffer irreparable harm if relief is not granted." The record demonstrates that prior to ending its relationship with WCR, BHS's business made up 90% of WCR's revenue. Both the complaint and Johansen's affidavit state that Marvin used her position as WCR's employee to establish a business relationship with BHS, and then while still employed with WCR, solic
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|