City of Mounds View v. Metropolitan Airports Com'n, s. C0-98-1989

• Decision Date: 30 March 1999
• Docket Number: Nos. C0-98-1989,C9-98-2011,s. C0-98-1989
• Citation: City of Mounds View v. Metropolitan Airports Com'n, 590 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. App. 1999)
• Parties: CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION, Appellant (C0-98-1989), Defendant and Counterclaimant (C9-98-2011), Metropolitan Council, Intervenor-Defendant (C0-98-1989), Appellant (C9-98-2011).
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 355

590 N.W.2d 355

CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, Respondent, v.METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION, Appellant (C0-98-1989) Defendant and Counterclaimant (C9-98-2011) Metropolitan Council, Intervenor-Defendant (C0-98-1989) Appellant (C9-98-2011).

Nos. C0-98-1989, C9-98-2011.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

March 30, 1999.

Syllabus by the Court

A city seeking to enjoin the planning activity of the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Airports Commission does not show irreparable harm by asserting that if a court subsequently disallows the plan, the city will have spent public planning and administrative funds unnecessarily.

Donald W. Selzer, Jr., Andrew J. Voss, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Minneapolis, for appellant, defendant and counterclaimantMetropolitan Airport Commission.

Andrew D. Parker, Kelly J. Smits, Matthew E. Johnson, Smith Parker, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, for intervenor-defendant, appellantMetropolitan Council.

James M. Strommen, Robert C. Long, Kennedy & Graven, Chtd., Minneapolis, for respondent.

Considered and decided by HARTEN, Presiding Judge, RANDALL, Judge, and SHUMAKER, Judge.

OPINION

HARTEN, Judge.

The district court granted respondentCity of Mounds View a temporary injunction requiring appellantMetropolitan Airport Commission to withdraw its recommendation to appellantMetropolitan Council that an airport runway be extended.Because respondent failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion and reverse.

FACTS

AppellantMetropolitan Council(MC) is a public corporation responsible for coordinating and planning the metropolitan area; appellantMetropolitan Airports Commission(MAC) is a public corporation with jurisdiction over airports.RespondentCity 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

SB11<470>[1-3] 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 Bolander & Sons v. City of Minneapolis, 502 N.W.2d 203, 209(Minn.1993).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 expended in administrative hearings, even where the agency may be exceeding its jurisdiction, do not amount to irreparable injury justifying intervention by a court of equity.* * * In the absence of a showing of irreparable injury, we must hold that, in the interest of orderly and uninterrupted administrative action an injunction should not issue to interfere with the commission's administrative proceedings.

Id. at 7, 60 N.W.2d at 21-22.Like the employer in Thomas, City showed no injury other than "[p]roblematical damages based on speculation" when it argued that taxpayers' funds might be spent unnecessarily if eventually the court were to decide against extending the runway.See alsoSheehan v. Hennepin County District Court, 253 Minn. 462, 93 N.W.2d 1(1958)(upholding a writ of prohibition to stop the court issuing a temporary order restraining the commissioner of insurance from proceeding against an insurance company).

The mere fact that a party might be saved the time and expense of defending himself at an administrative proceeding would not be sufficient to justify equitable relief by means of injunction * * *.

* * * *

* * * The temporary restraining order issued by the court below prevented relator [commissioner of insurance] from carrying out his administrative duties.The statute having made it plain that the exercise of such power by the court at the time was unauthorized, it becomes manifest that the remedy of appeal was and is plainly inadequate and the writ should not be denied.

Id. at 467-68, 93 N.W.2d at 5-6.Both Thomas and Sheehan solidly hold that an entity may not enjoin commissions from their legitimate activities because the expense the entity incurs as a result of those activities could prove unnecessary if the activities are subsequently disallowed by a court.The district court's finding that City would experience "irreparable harm" if MC were allowed to consider MAC's recommendation that the runway be extended is erroneous as a matter of law, and absent a showing of irreparable harm, the injunction interfering with the proceedings of MC and MAC was an abuse of discretion.

Moreover, even if City had met the threshold showing of irreparable harm, it did not make an adequate showing on the factors a court is to consider in granting injunctive relief.Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75, 137 N.W.2d 314, 321-22(1965), enumerates the factors: (1)the parties' relationship prior to the dispute (2) the weight of the irreparable harm alleged by the party seeking the injunction compared to the weight of the harm suffered by the other party if the injunction is granted; (3) the likelihood that the party seeking the injunction will prevail on the merits; (4) public policy considerations; and (5) administrative burden on the court.

1.Prior Relationship of the Parties

City and MAC were in litigation concerning Airport's development during the 1980s.That litigation culminated in a July 1986 stipulation and court order that the runway be extended to 4,000 feet.The district court's finding on the parties' prior relationship implies that the 1986 order permanently restricts the length of the runway and prohibits MAC and MC from further...