Laserfiche WebLink
<br />N.W2d 368, 379 (Minn.Ct. App. 1999). Consequently, the final Dahlberg factor, like the <br /> <br />others, weighs against Look's request for injunctive relief. <br /> <br />E. SECURITY IS REQUIRED <br /> <br />Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 65 is clear: "[n]o temporary restraining order or <br /> <br />temporary injunction shall be granted except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such <br /> <br />sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or <br /> <br />suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained." Minn. R. <br /> <br />Civ. P. 65.03(a). In addition, Minnesota General Rule of Practice 135requires: <br /> <br />Before any restraining order shall be issued. . . the applicant shall give a bond in <br />the penal sum of at least $2,000, executed by the applicant or by some person for <br />the applicant as a principal; approved by the court and conditioned for the <br />payment to the party restrained of such damages as the restrained person shall <br />sustain by reason of the order, if the court finally decides that the applicant was <br />not entitled thereto. <br /> <br />Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 135 (emphasis added). <br /> <br />There is no reason why such a requirement should not be followed here. This case <br /> <br />involves a request for injunctive relief that, if granted, will severely disrupt PACT's operations <br /> <br />and educational mission, and will result in financial losses. DeBruyn Aff., ~ 18. In the event an <br /> <br />injunction is issued, Look should be required to post a bond. <br /> <br />F. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS MUST BE DENIED <br /> <br />PACT maybe entitled to its costs pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.03 and Minn. Gen. R. <br /> <br />Prac. 135 if it is found to have been wrongfullyenjoined or restrained. Look's request for an <br /> <br />award of his own attorneys' fees, however, must fail. Under the "American Rule" which is <br /> <br />followed in Minnesota, a prevailing party is not entitled to collect attorneys' fees absent a statute <br /> <br />or contractual agreement. See Irvin v. Surdyk's Liquor, 599 N.W.2d 132, 145 (Minn. 1999) <br /> <br />(Russell Anderson, J;, dissenting) (citing Alyeska Pipeline Servo CO. V. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 <br /> <br />-148- <br /> <br />21 <br />