Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C'~ <br /> <br />c-. <br /> <br />499 (Minn. App. 2002) (quotation omitted). The statute's wording is unambiguous, and the plain <br /> <br />meaning of the term "town" is well-established in Minnesota law. The Court cannot employ a . <br /> <br />definition of the word in contravention of the term's consistent usage in numerous other statutes. <br />. . <br /> <br />Temuorarv In junction <br /> <br />The Court's grant of summary judgment resolves Plaintiffs' action on its merits, and <br /> <br />makes their motion for a temporary injunction moot. See DLH. Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 69 <br /> <br />(Minn. 1997) (summary judgment represents a decision on the merits); Metropolitan Sports <br /> <br />. Facilities Com'n v. Minnesota ~wins Partnership, 638 N.W.2d 214, 226.(Minn. App. 2002) <br /> <br />(holding that a court cannot grant a temporary injunction if plaintiff shows "no likelihood of <br /> <br />prevailing on the merits"). <br /> <br />Conffict of Interest <br /> <br />Plaintiffs argue that counsel for Defendant should be disqualified for a concurrent <br /> <br />conflict of interest, as defmed by Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(a)(1). Defendant is represented, in <br /> <br />part, by attorneys the firm of Briggs and Morgan, P .A. The City of Ramsey has employed at <br /> <br />. least one other .attorney from that law firm on a number of matters. Plaintiffs requested that the <br /> <br />Briggs 'and Morgan attorneys withdraw their representation, which they refused to do. <br /> <br />Defendant denies the existence of a directly adverse conflict. <br /> <br />The conflict of interest of issue is not properly before the Court, as Plaintiff has not filed <br /> <br />a notice of motion and motion for disqualification, as required by Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115 .04( a). . <br /> <br />However, since both parties have adequately briefed the issue, the Court will address it in the <br /> <br />interests of justice. See Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115.07. <br /> <br />6 <br />