Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2. The harm to be suffered by the moving party if the preliminary <br />injunction is denied as compared to that inflicted on the non-moving <br />party if the injunction issues pending trial. <br /> <br />Look is also totally unable to tip the balance of harms in favor of the issuance of an <br /> <br />injunction. "[A] temporary injunction usually should be granted where the questions presented <br /> <br />are grave and injury to the moving party will be certain, substantial, and irreparable if it is denied <br /> <br />. and the final.determination is in his favor, while if it is granted and the decision is unfavorable <br /> <br />the inconvenience and loss to the opposing party will be inconsiderable or may be adequately <br /> <br />protected by a bond." Dahlberg, 272 Minn. at 321, 137 N.W. 2d at 275, n. 12. <br /> <br />a. Look Has Moved Too Soon <br /> <br />Look's claims are, at best, wholly speculative and this lawsuit is premature. As the <br /> <br />supreme court explained in J.F. Quest Foundary Co. v. Int'l Molders & Foundary Workers <br /> <br />Union, a series of contingent events which may ultimately result in the. denial of some benefit is <br /> <br />"too weak a foundation upon .which to erect a claim to injunctive relief." 216 Minn. 436, 441, 13 <br /> <br />N.W.2d 32, 34 (1944) (citations omitted). The court observed that a union election could not be <br /> <br />enjoined because it could not: <br /> <br />"be said with certainty at this time what the results of such an election would be. <br />lt is possible that it might be determined that the [current] Union continue as the <br />exclusive bargaining agent of plaintiffs employees. .. In any event, it is purely <br />speculative now to determine that the results would be such as to constitute <br />irremediable damage to plaintiff. Iniunctive relief cannot be. given for. what is a <br />mere assumption ora possible result. Some irremediable damage must be shown <br />to establish a case for equitable relief." <br /> <br />!d. 442, 13 N.W.2d at 35 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). <br /> <br />Here, Look can be treated no differently than the prematurely worried plaintiffs in J.F. <br /> <br />Quest. His complaints amount to no more than a series of maybes and what ifs. He <br /> <br />acknowledges that his son still has a chance of admission under the current policy, and cannot <br /> <br />establish that the ultimate result would be different under another scheme. Affidavit of Matthew <br /> <br />-142- <br /> <br />15 <br />