How Do You Get a Temporary Injunction in Minnesota?

What is a temporary injunction in a Minnesota business case?

A temporary injunction is a court order, made after notice and a hearing, that holds a business dispute in place until trial. Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.02(a) states: “No temporary injunction shall be granted without notice of motion or an order to show cause to the adverse party.”

The Minnesota Supreme Court described the order in Miller v. Foley, 317 N.W.2d 710 (Minn. 1982): “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 injunction that had stopped a county from laying off three employees. The Court of Appeals quoted the same definition in Pacific Equipment, a distributorship case discussed below.

A temporary restraining order (TRO) is the faster, shorter cousin. Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.01, a judge may sign a TRO without notice only if specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint show “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage” before the other side can be heard. 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.” A business can ask for both: a TRO to stop the harm right away, then a temporary injunction to hold the dispute in place until trial. The strategy for a temporary restraining order covers that first step.

How do Minnesota courts decide whether to grant one?

Minnesota courts weigh the five factors from Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 137 N.W.2d 314 (Minn. 1965), together rather than one at a time. In that case the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld an order keeping a 40-year Ford dealership in place while the dealer litigated whether Ford had just cause to end it. The factors 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 the business asking for relief would suffer if the court says no, compared with the harm the other side would suffer if the court says yes.
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.”

On the merits, the required showing can be modest. In Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. Minnesota Twins Partnership, 638 N.W.2d 214 (Minn. App. 2002), the Court of Appeals addressed that showing. The 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.” The same court added 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.” The Twins order required the team to play its 2002 home schedule at the Metrodome under its use agreement with the public commission that ran the stadium.

A strong merits case does not win the motion by itself. In Pacific Equipment & Irrigation, Inc. v. Toro Co., 519 N.W.2d 911 (Minn. App. 1994), the district court found the distributor more likely than not to win a key franchise question and still denied relief, stating: “All five Dahlberg factors must be considered as a whole.” The Court of Appeals affirmed. The page on how courts measure likelihood of success goes deeper on that factor.

What counts as irreparable harm in a commercial dispute?

Irreparable harm is harm that money awarded at trial cannot repair, shown with specific facts. In Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc., 278 N.W.2d 81 (Minn. 1979), the Minnesota Supreme Court said the business seeking an injunction “must establish that his legal remedy is not adequate” and “that the injunction is necessary to prevent great and irreparable injury.”

Labels do not carry this factor. 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. 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.” The Court of Appeals has also stated that “The failure to show irreparable harm is, by itself, a sufficient ground upon which to deny a preliminary injunction,” in Morse v. City of Waterville, 458 N.W.2d 728 (Minn. App. 1990), a city clerk’s suspension case.

Money losses that can be counted can defeat the motion. In Pacific Equipment, 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 the distributor’s common-law claims. The franchise claim stood apart. The court said that “Had the parties agreed that Pacific was a franchisee, an analysis and balancing of the Dahlberg factors in light of the applicability of the Minnesota Franchise Act probably would have required a conclusion that Pacific had met its burden for injunctive relief.” For a dealer or distributor that is a franchisee under the act, Minn. Stat. § 80C.14, subd. 1, provides that “A violation of this section is enjoinable by a court of competent jurisdiction.” For a motor-fuel franchise, see also 15 U.S.C. § 2806(a)(1), quoted in the bond section below. Two facts in the common-law finding matter for planning: whether your loss can be measured, and whether the other side can pay a judgment. Evidence that the other side cannot pay goes to the second fact. The comparison of specific performance versus money damages runs on the same logic.

Minnesota appellate courts have upheld findings of irreparable harm where the loss resisted a dollar figure:

• Customer goodwill. In Webb, discussed in the next section, losing the former employee’s customers would have cost the business 45% of its custom publishing revenue, and the court found the damage to its reputation “substantial and not easily measured.”
• A unique contract benefit. In Twins, the court accepted that “Irreparable harm, however, is not always susceptible of precise proof,” and it held: “Since it appears from the record that money could not compensate the commission for the intangible losses that would result if the Twins breached their promise to play, the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering harm to the public when deciding whether to grant temporary injunctive relief.”
• Control of a closely held company. In Haley v. Forcelle, 669 N.W.2d 48 (Minn. App. 2003), a co-founder, officer, and minority owner who had personally guaranteed about $4.3 million of company debt was fired by the majority owner. The court agreed that “the loss of income and other effects of being terminated from a job are generally insufficient,” but upheld the finding of irreparable injury because his loss extended to his voice in management and his ability to protect a company whose loans he had guaranteed. One judge dissented.

The threat also has to be real. In Hollenkamp v. Peters, 358 N.W.2d 108 (Minn. App. 1984), the court repeated that “An injunction will not issue to prevent an imagined injury which there is no reasonable ground to fear. The threatened injury must be real and substantial.”

How do contract covenants and statutes change the analysis?

A breached restrictive covenant, or a statute that authorizes an injunction, can make irreparable harm easier to show. The covenant must still be enforceable, and for employee noncompetes Minnesota law changed in 2023.

Customer and confidentiality covenants. In Webb Publishing Co. v. Fosshage, 426 N.W.2d 445 (Minn. App. 1988), the court held: “Irreparable injury can be inferred from the breach of a restrictive covenant 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 other side can answer that inference: “the inference may be rebutted by evidence that the former employee has no hold on the good will of the business or its clientele.” Webb involved a 1986 noncompete, and the court sent the case back to reconsider how broad the restraint should be. Cherne applied a similar inference, after trial, to former employees who took customer lists.

The 2023 noncompete ban. Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subd. 2, provides that “Any covenant not to compete contained in a contract or agreement is void and unenforceable.” Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subd. 1, defines that covenant as “an agreement between an employee and employer that restricts the employee, after termination of the employment,” and defines an employee as “any individual who performs services for an employer, including independent contractors.” The session law states that the section “applies to contracts and agreements entered into on or after” July 1, 2023. The ban does not reach a covenant “agreed upon during the sale of a business” or one made in anticipation of dissolving a business. Under Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subd. 1, a covenant not to compete “does not include a nonsolicitation agreement” or “a nondisclosure agreement, or agreement designed to protect trade secrets or confidential information.” For a post-2023 employee agreement, the injunction motion should rest on those surviving covenants, because the noncompete itself is void.

Statutes that authorize injunctions. Minn. Stat. § 325D.45, subd. 1, provides that 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.” The statute adds: “Proof of monetary damage, loss of profits, or intent to deceive is not required.” Under the Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Minn. Stat. § 325C.02 provides that “Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.” The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act adds a limit when the case is brought under it. An injunction against actual or threatened misappropriation under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i) may not “prevent a person from entering into an employment relationship.” Conditions on that employment must rest on “evidence of threatened misappropriation and not merely on the information the person knows.” The order also may not “otherwise conflict with an applicable State law prohibiting restraints on the practice of a lawful profession, trade, or business.” The page on trade-secret injunctions and damages covers those claims in detail.

What evidence and papers does the motion need?

The motion needs sworn evidence. 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.” Unsworn material may not count at all. In Twins, the team argued it would lose money if forced to play, but the court noted that “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.”

That rule cuts both ways. The business asking for relief should support each Dahlberg factor with an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge, attaching the contract, the correspondence, and the sales records, because the judge decides on that record. The business opposing the motion needs the same discipline for its own harm, including financial records.

The paperwork follows Minnesota’s General Rules of Practice. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.01(a)(2) classifies “temporary relief” as a nondispositive motion. Under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.04(a), no motion is heard until the moving party “pays any required motion filing fee” and serves and files four sets of papers: a notice of motion and motion, a proposed order, any affidavits and exhibits, and any memorandum of law. The rule sets that filing “at least 21 days 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 must certify to the court, before the hearing, “compliance with this rule or any reasons for not complying.” Rule 115.01(b) says “the court may modify the time limits,” and the rule’s advisory committee comment notes that “most such motions in state court are heard on expedited schedules set at the time of initial appearance.” The current rule and the judge’s scheduling order should control your calendar, because either can change the dates.

How does the hearing work, and can it turn into the trial?

The judge hears the motion on the affidavits, any live testimony the court allows, and argument, and may fold the trial into the hearing. Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.02(c) allows the court to “order the trial of the action on the merits to be advanced and consolidated with the hearing on the motion.” Even without consolidation, “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.” Your affidavits and exhibits for the motion should be prepared as trial evidence, because they may become exactly that. Under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.08, “Any party seeking to present witnesses at a motion hearing shall obtain prior consent of the court and shall notify the adverse party in the motion documents.”

If the business already holds a TRO granted without notice, Rule 65.01 requires it to move ahead: “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.”

The judge must explain the ruling in writing or on the record. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 provides 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.” Twins adds that “The district court must make sufficient findings to permit meaningful appellate review.” A proposed order that walks through all five Dahlberg factors gives the judge a ready structure for those findings. In Webb, the Court of Appeals also suggested the trial court consider expediting trial under Rule 65.02, given the order’s effect on the former employee’s ability to earn a living. The overview of the injunction process from application to decision walks through the same sequence.

What does the bond cost if the injunction turns out to be wrong?

Minnesota’s court rule conditions a temporary injunction on security from the business asking for it, unless a statute removes that condition for the claim. 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 claim under the unfair-practices section of the Minnesota Franchise Act, Minn. Stat. § 80C.14, subd. 1, provides: “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.” For a franchisee “authorized or permitted, under a franchise, to use a trademark in connection with the sale, consignment, or distribution of motor fuel,” 15 U.S.C. § 2806(a)(1) provides that, on termination or nonrenewal, “no State or any political subdivision thereof may adopt, enforce, or continue in effect any provision of any law or regulation (including any remedy or penalty applicable to any violation thereof)” on that subject “unless such provision of such law or regulation is the same as the applicable provision of this subchapter.”

For a restraining order, Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 135 sets a floor outside listed exemptions: “the applicant shall give a bond in the penal sum of at least $2,000.” Above that floor, the amount is whatever the court deems proper to cover the costs and damages of a party found to have been wrongfully enjoined. That exposure belongs in the budget alongside attorney fees.

The restrained business should raise any objection to the amount in the district court. In Haley, the Court of Appeals refused to review a complaint that the $25,000 bond was too low, because “A challenge to the adequacy of a bond must first be raised and addressed by the district court.” The page on how a Minnesota court sets the bond covers the amount, waivers, and collecting on the bond.

What must the order say, and whom does it bind?

The order must state its reasons and describe exactly what is forbidden, and it reaches more people than the named parties. Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.04 requires every injunction to “set forth the reasons for its issuance,” to “be specific in terms,” and to “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, “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.”

Scope should match the problem. Hollenkamp states that “A preliminary injunction should not exceed the needs of the particular case.” In Webb, the order barred soliciting any customer Webb had served in the year before the termination, the record did not show the former employee had information about customers he had not served, and the Court of Appeals sent the case back to reconsider the scope. A narrow proposed order, tied to the specific customers, products, or acts at issue, is easier to grant and easier to defend on appeal.

An order the other side ignores is enforced through contempt. Minn. Stat. § 588.01, subd. 3, lists “disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court” as a constructive contempt.

How do appeals of temporary injunction rulings work?

Either side can appeal right away, but the appellate court defers heavily to the district judge. 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 set a deadline for that appeal, and the rule’s 1998 advisory committee comment explains why it matters: “Timely filing the notice of appeal with the clerk of the appellate courts and timely service on the adverse party are the jurisdictional steps required to initiate an appeal.” The current deadline should be checked the day the order arrives.

On review, the question is narrow. Carl Bolander states: “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.” Pacific Equipment adds that the appellate court views the facts in the pleadings and affidavits as favorably as possible to the party who won below. The practical result: the district court hearing is where a temporary injunction is won or lost, and the record built for it is the record on appeal.

How is a federal court in Minnesota different?

A federal court in Minnesota calls the order a preliminary injunction and applies a four-factor test from the Eighth Circuit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1) provides: “The court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.” Rule 65(c) requires 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.”

The standard comes from Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc): “Whether a preliminary injunction should issue involves consideration of (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of the balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.” Minnesota’s Dahlberg test adds the parties’ prior relationship and the court’s burden of supervising the order, which can matter in a long-term supply or dealer dispute. Remedies clauses in your contracts may also shape either court’s analysis, as covered in remedies clauses that affect injunctive relief.

Planning a Temporary Injunction Motion

A temporary injunction in a Minnesota business case is won on the record built for the hearing. The business asking for one should show, by affidavit, each of the five Dahlberg factors, and above all harm that money at trial cannot repair, and it should budget for any bond the court requires, which answers for the other side’s losses if the order proves wrong. The business opposing one should put its own harm and its bond concerns before the district judge, because the appellate court reviews only what that judge saw and decided.

If your company is preparing or facing a temporary injunction motion, email [email protected] with a brief description of the dispute. I can review your affidavits and proposed order and tell you which Dahlberg factors the record does not yet support. I start an intake and conflict check before you send confidential documents. More on Minnesota business litigation.