How to Get an Injunction or TRO in Minnesota

How does a Minnesota injunction case move from filing to decision?

A Minnesota injunction case moves in a set order: the business starts a lawsuit, may obtain a TRO at once, posts security, and then must proceed to a temporary injunction hearing held on notice, where the judge decides on sworn evidence whether the order stays in place until trial.

1. The lawsuit. The emergency motion is made inside a lawsuit. Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01, “A civil action is commenced against each defendant” in one of the ways the rule lists, and one of them is “when the summons is served upon that defendant.”
2. The TRO. Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.01 allows a TRO and sets two added conditions when the business seeks one without notice to the other side.
3. Security. Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.03(a), no TRO or temporary injunction issues without security from the business asking for it.
4. The hearing. Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.02(a), “No temporary injunction shall be granted without notice of motion or an order to show cause to the adverse party.” After a TRO issued without notice, the motion “shall be set down for hearing at the earliest practicable time and shall take precedence over all matters except older matters of the same character.”
5. The decision. The judge grants or denies the temporary injunction with written or stated findings, and either side may appeal.
6. Trial. A permanent injunction, if any, comes after trial on the merits. In Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc., 278 N.W.2d 81 (Minn. 1979), the district court entered a two-year injunction against former employees after a bench trial.

Two appellate cases show how fast the first steps can move. In Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. Minnesota Twins Partnership, 638 N.W.2d 214 (Minn. App. 2002), the public commission that ran the Metrodome sued to hold the Twins to their agreement to play the 2002 season there. The opinion records: “The commission moved for a temporary restraining order on November 6, 2001, and the court issued the ex parte order on the same date.” The hearing followed on November 15, and the judge granted the temporary injunction on November 16. In Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 137 N.W.2d 314 (Minn. 1965), a Ford dealer sued to stop Ford from ending its franchise and obtained an ex parte TRO on July 1, 1964, and the court heard the injunction motion on July 9.

What must a business show before a court will stop the other side?

A business must show harm that money awarded at trial cannot repair, backed by specific facts. The Minnesota Supreme Court said in Cherne that the party seeking an injunction “must establish that his legal remedy is not adequate” and “that the injunction is necessary to prevent great and irreparable injury.”

The court treats the order as an exception. In Miller v. Foley, 317 N.W.2d 710 (Minn. 1982), it wrote: “A temporary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy. Its purpose is to preserve the status quo until adjudication of the case on its merits.” Miller reversed an order that had stopped a county from laying off three employees. Their losses were the kind common to discharged employees, reinstatement and back pay would be available if they won, and their chance of winning was slight.

A bare claim of harm fails. In Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 502 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. 1993), a recycling company asked to stop the city’s competing facility, and the court affirmed the denial: “Bolander’s mere statement that it is suffering or will suffer irreparable injury, without more, is not enough to support a claim for injunctive relief.” Countable losses can also defeat the motion. In Pacific Equipment & Irrigation, Inc. v. Toro Co., 519 N.W.2d 911 (Minn. App. 1994), the court approved a finding “that money damages are adequate because damages are reasonably calculable and provable with reasonable certainty and because Toro has the ability to pay damages” on a distributor’s common-law claims.

Minnesota appellate courts have upheld orders where the loss resisted a dollar figure. In Webb, discussed below and affirmed in part, a former account executive was taking customers whose loss would have cost the publisher 45% of its custom publishing revenue. In Dahlberg, ending a 40-year franchise would have left the dealer “with an expensive plant designed to meet the needs of a Ford dealer but with no Ford products to sell.” The detail of how Minnesota courts weigh a temporary injunction request, including each kind of harm courts have accepted, has its own page.

How do you get a TRO without notice in Minnesota?

A Minnesota judge may sign a TRO without notice only on two showings. Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.01, it must clearly appear “from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party’s attorney can be heard in opposition.” The applicant’s attorney must also state to the court in writing “the efforts, if any, which have been made to give notice or the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required.” For a labor dispute, see the Minn. Stat. chapter 185 sections named above.

The Court of Appeals explained the purpose of that second requirement in Webb Publishing Co. v. Fosshage, 426 N.W.2d 445 (Minn. App. 1988). A publisher sought to stop a former account executive from soliciting its customers under a 1986 noncompete. The court wrote: “The purpose of the rule is to restrict ex parte orders to those situations where notice is not practicable or not heeded. To achieve that purpose and facilitate review, trial courts should not issue ex parte restraining orders without written statements of notice.” The court still upheld the TRO in Webb, because the employee’s attorneys knew of the motion and the assigned judge, the publisher’s affidavit alleged immediate injury, and the employee later had full notice of the injunction hearing.

Two more rules travel with an ex parte TRO. “In the event that a temporary restraining order is based upon any affidavit, a copy of such affidavit must be served with the temporary restraining order.” And the business that got the order must then press its motion: “the party who obtained the temporary restraining order shall proceed with the application for a temporary injunction, and, if the party does not do so, the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order.”

I suggest giving notice whenever it is practicable, even short notice, because the two showings above apply only to a TRO sought without notice, and Webb reads the rule to limit ex parte orders to cases where notice is not practicable or not heeded. Choosing among those paths is part of the strategy for a temporary restraining order.

What papers does the injunction motion need?

A temporary injunction motion in Minnesota district court needs a notice of motion and motion, a proposed order, sworn evidence, and any memorandum of law the business intends to submit. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.01(a)(2) treats a request for “temporary relief” as a nondispositive motion, so the papers follow Rule 115.04(a):

1. Notice of motion and motion.
2. Proposed order.
3. Any affidavits and exhibits to be submitted with the motion.
4. Any memorandum of law the business intends to submit.

On timing, Rule 115.04(a) states: “No motion shall be heard until the moving party pays any required motion filing fee, serves the following documents on all opposing counsel and self-represented litigants, and files the documents with the court administrator at least 21 days before the hearing.” The responding side has its own deadline under Rule 115.04(b), “at least 14 days before the hearing,” and under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.06, “If responsive documents are not properly served and filed in a nondispositive motion, the court may deem the motion unopposed and may grant the relief requested without a hearing.” The court can shorten that schedule. Under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.07, “If irreparable harm will result absent immediate action by the court, or if the interests of justice otherwise require, the court may waive or modify the time limits established by this rule.” After a TRO issued without notice, Rule 65.01 instead requires the injunction motion to be heard at the earliest practicable time. In Twins and Dahlberg, the injunction hearings came nine and eight days after the TROs.

The parties must also talk before the hearing. Under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.10, “No motion will be heard unless the parties have conferred in an attempt to resolve their differences prior to the hearing,” and the moving party “shall certify to the court, before the time of the hearing, compliance with this rule or any reasons for not complying.”

The evidence has to arrive in sworn form. Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.02(b) provides: “A temporary injunction may be granted if by affidavit, deposition testimony, or oral testimony in court, it appears that sufficient grounds exist therefor.” Live witnesses need advance permission: under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.08, “No testimony will be taken at motion hearings except under unusual circumstances,” and a party wanting witnesses “shall obtain prior consent of the court and shall notify the adverse party in the motion documents of the names and addresses of the witnesses which that party intends to call at the motion hearing.” In Twins, the team argued it would lose money if forced to play, and the Court of Appeals set that argument aside: “The material on which appellants rely to support their claim that they will lose money if the injunction issues was not presented to the district court in this form.” The Twins ruling applied that requirement to the restrained party’s evidence.

I suggest drafting the proposed order with the same precision the final order must have, naming the customers, documents, accounts, or acts to be restrained, because Rule 65.04, covered in the order section below, requires the order itself to be specific.

How much is the bond, and what does it protect?

The bond is security the business asking for the order posts to cover the other side’s losses if the order turns out to be wrong, in an amount the judge sets. Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.03(a) provides: “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.”

For a restraining order, Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 135 sets a floor: “the applicant shall give a bond in the penal sum of at least $2,000.” That bond is “conditioned for the payment to the party restrained of such damages as the restrained person shall sustain by reason of the order, if the court finally decides that the applicant was not entitled thereto.” In Webb, the judge set the TRO bond at $2,000 and continued it as security for the temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals said the trial court “has wide discretion in determining the amount of the bond,” and noted that the employee “failed to suggest an appropriate amount to the trial court at the temporary injunction hearing.”

A surety that signs the bond answers for it directly. Under Rule 65.03(b), “The surety’s liability may be enforced on motion without the necessity of an independent action.” A statute can change the requirement for a particular claim. Under the Minnesota Franchise Act, Minn. Stat. § 80C.14, subd. 1, “A temporary injunction may be granted under this section without requiring the posting of any bond or security. A bond or security is required if a temporary restraining order is granted.” The details of how a Minnesota judge sets the bond amount have their own page.

What happens at the temporary injunction hearing?

At the temporary injunction hearing, both sides present sworn evidence and argument, with live witnesses only as Rule 115.08 allows (for a labor dispute, see Minn. Stat. chapter 185), and the judge weighs the five factors the Minnesota Supreme Court set out in Dahlberg, taken together. As Miller restated them, they are:

1. “The nature and background of the relationship between the parties preexisting the dispute giving rise to the request for relief.”
2. “The harm to be suffered by plaintiff if the temporary restraint is denied as compared to that inflicted on defendant if the injunction issues pending trial.”
3. “The likelihood that one party or the other will prevail on the merits when the fact situation is viewed in light of established precedents fixing the limits of equitable relief.”
4. “The aspects of the fact situation, if any, which permit or require consideration of public policy expressed in the statutes, State and Federal.”
5. “The administrative burdens involved in judicial supervision and enforcement of the temporary decree.”

The merits showing can be modest, but it cannot be absent. The Twins court said that “if a plaintiff makes even a doubtful showing as to the likelihood of prevailing on the merits, a district court may consider issuing a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo until trial on the merits.” It also stated the floor: “If a plaintiff can show no likelihood of prevailing on the merits, the district court errs as a matter of law in granting a temporary injunction.” A merits showing that is only more likely than not does not always win either. In Pacific Equipment, the Court of Appeals held that where the parties legitimately dispute whether a distributor is a franchisee under the Minnesota Franchise Act, “the district court is not required to grant a temporary injunction where the court merely finds that the party claiming the existence of a franchise agreement is more likely than not to prevail on the merits of that claim.” It affirmed the district court’s denial of relief and approved that court’s conclusion that “All five Dahlberg factors must be considered as a whole.” The district court had also “dissolved a temporary restraining order previously issued.”

Courts are cautious about forcing a soured relationship to continue. Dahlberg said “the judicial power must not be used, even temporarily, to compel the continuance of a business relationship which has proved unsatisfactory to one of the parties unless adequate reasons are established by the party seeking relief.” A contract clause naming injunctive relief can help the request but does not decide it. In Twins, the court weighed “the recognition in the contract that specific performance may be a remedy” with the equities, and said: “A party does not have an automatic right to specific performance as a remedy for breach of a contract.” Drafting choices are covered in remedies clauses that affect injunctive relief.

The hearing can become the trial. Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.02(c), “Before or after the commencement of the hearing on a motion for a temporary injunction, the court may order the trial of the action on the merits to be advanced and consolidated with the hearing on the motion.” Even without that order, “any evidence received upon a motion for a temporary injunction which would be admissible at the trial on the merits becomes part of the trial record and need not be repeated at trial.” The same subdivision limits both rules: “This provision shall be so construed and applied as to preserve any rights the parties may have to trial by jury.”

What must the order say, and who has to obey it?

A Minnesota injunction order must state the court’s reasons and findings, describe the restrained acts specifically, and bind only the parties and those connected to them who have actual notice. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 requires that “in granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions the court shall similarly set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds for its action.” The Twins court added: “The district court must make sufficient findings to permit meaningful appellate review.”

Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.04 sets the form and reach. Every injunction and restraining order “shall be specific in terms” and “shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained.” The order binds “the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and . . . those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise.” A competitor that hired the restrained employee, for example, is bound only if it acts in concert with that employee and has actual notice of the order.

Disobeying the order has a consequence. Minn. Stat. § 588.01, subd. 3, lists “disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court” as a constructive contempt. I suggest serving the order on every person the business needs bound, because the rule ties the order’s reach to actual notice.

How do trade secret, noncompete, and deceptive trade practice claims change the process?

Several Minnesota statutes and one federal statute change what a business can ask for, or whether it can ask at all, while the Rule 65 steps stay the same.

Trade secrets. The Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“MUTSA”) provides, in Minn. Stat. § 325C.02, that “Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined,” so a business need not wait for the information to be used. The same section provides that “Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist, but the injunction may be continued for an additional reasonable period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation.” Paragraph (c) adds that “In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order,” such as returning files.

The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act reaches only some trade secrets. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1), an owner may bring a civil action “if the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” The act lets a court enjoin “any actual or threatened misappropriation” on “such terms as the court deems reasonable,” with limits. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i), the order may not “prevent a person from entering into an employment relationship, and that conditions placed on such employment shall be based on evidence of threatened misappropriation and not merely on the information the person knows.” It also may not “otherwise conflict with an applicable State law prohibiting restraints on the practice of a lawful profession, trade, or business.” The federal act also offers an emergency remedy Rule 65 lacks: a court may, “upon ex parte application but only in extraordinary circumstances, issue an order providing for the seizure of property necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret that is the subject of the action.” It may not grant that application unless it makes the specific findings the statute lists. The full sequence in a trade secret injunctions and damages case has its own page.

Employee noncompetes. Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subd. 2, provides: “(a) Any covenant not to compete contained in a contract or agreement is void and unenforceable.” The ban has exceptions, including when “the covenant not to compete is agreed upon during the sale of a business,” and the session law applies it to agreements “entered into on or after” July 1, 2023. Under subdivision 1, a covenant not to compete “does not include a nondisclosure agreement” and “does not include a nonsolicitation agreement.” Webb involved a 1986 noncompete, and the court there inferred irreparable harm “if the former employee came into contact with the employer’s customers in a way which obtains a personal hold on the good will of the business.” The court added: “However, the inference may be rebutted by evidence that the former employee has no hold on the good will of the business or its clientele.” The rules for noncompetes signed before the 2023 ban have their own page.

Deceptive trade practices. Under Minn. Stat. § 325D.45, subd. 1, “A person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may be granted an injunction against it under the principles of equity and on terms that the court considers reasonable. Proof of monetary damage, loss of profits, or intent to deceive is not required. Relief granted for the copying of an article shall be limited to the prevention of confusion or misunderstanding as to source.”

How do appeals of injunction rulings work?

A Minnesota business can appeal a temporary injunction ruling without waiting for trial, and the appellate court reviews the ruling for a clear abuse of the district judge’s discretion. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(b) allows an appeal “from an order which grants, refuses, dissolves or refuses to dissolve, an injunction.” The appellate rules also set a deadline for starting the appeal, which this page does not state; the current rule text controls.

The standard of review is narrow. In Carl Bolander, the Minnesota Supreme Court said: “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.” The ruling also does not decide the case. Twins stated: “The grant of a temporary injunction neither establishes the law of the case nor constitutes an adjudication of the issues on the merits.” Because the appellate court reviews only what the district judge had, the sworn record built for the hearing is the record on appeal; how that record is assembled is covered in the record on appeal.

How is a federal court in Minnesota different?

A federal court in Minnesota follows Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which calls the second order a preliminary injunction and limits how long an ex parte TRO lasts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1) provides: “The court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.” Under Rule 65(e), “These rules do not modify the following: (1) any federal statute relating to temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions in actions affecting employer and employee,” and for a labor dispute, see 29 U.S.C. § 107.

One difference is duration. Under Rule 65(b)(2), a federal TRO issued without notice expires at the time “that the court sets, unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension.” The time the court sets after entry is “not to exceed 14 days.” Minnesota’s Rule 65.01 states no fixed expiration. It requires instead that, after a TRO issued without notice, the injunction motion “shall be set down for hearing at the earliest practicable time and shall take precedence over all matters except older matters of the same character.” Security works much the same way: under Rule 65(c), the federal court may issue either order “only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”

Planning an Emergency Court Order

A Minnesota judge decides a TRO and temporary injunction on the sworn record assembled in the first days of the dispute. The business asking for one should be ready with specific facts showing harm that money cannot repair, a proposed order precise enough to enforce, and a plan for the bond. The business on the other side should answer in sworn form by the deadline Rule 115.04(b) or the court sets, propose a bond amount, and move to dissolve or modify an order it believes is wrong, because the district judge’s record is the one the appellate court reviews.

If your company needs an emergency order or has been served with one, email [email protected] with a brief description of the dispute and the names of the parties on both sides. I run a conflict check before reviewing any order or motion papers. After that, I can review the affidavits and proposed order and tell you where the record does not yet support the request. More on Minnesota business litigation.