Laserfiche WebLink
<br />preference in the Illetropolitariareas occupied by cities such as Ramsey, particularly given the <br /> <br />Proximity Preference. <br /> <br />Look cannot demonstrate that PACT has violated the law by following the express <br /> <br />language of the statute. Thus, even if everything Look says is true about how PACT administers <br /> <br />its admissions preferences, Look has not established that he is entitled to any injunctive relief <br /> <br />and PACT is entitled to summary judgment dismissing his Complaint. <br /> <br />'D. LOOK HAS NOT SATISFIED THE OTHER FOUR CRITERIA FOR A <br />TEMPORARY INJUNCTION <br /> <br />Look's injunctive request must also be rejected because, in addition to being unable to <br /> <br />establish that his action is likely to succeed on the merits, he fails to meet any of the remaining <br /> <br />Dahlberg factors necessary for injunctive relief. <br /> <br />1. The nature of the relationship between the parties before the dispute <br />giving rise to the request for relief. <br /> <br />In applying the nature of the relationship factor, Minnesota courts look to preserving the <br /> <br />status quo of the parties' relationship before the movant's request for injunctive relief. See <br /> <br />Dahlberg, 272 Minn. at 276, 137 N.W.2d. Look makes no argument that issuance of an <br /> <br />injunction freezing PACT's admissions process would preserve the status quo. In fact, Look <br /> <br />complains about PACT's intention to "continue" its present enrollment practices. PI's. Br. at 6. <br /> <br />If Look's request were granted, this court would not be "preserving the status quo until trial," <br /> <br />Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm'n v. Minn. Twins P'ship, 638 N.W.2d 214, 226 (2002), but <br /> <br />would instead be changing the status quo because PACT's usual admission's process would be <br /> <br />halted. <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />-141- <br />