Motion-Secondary: Ryan Lazenby, Temaca Irrigation LLC vs Guadalupe Gomez, James Gomez, Temaca Lawn Sprinkler's, Inc., d.b.a. Temaca Lawn Sprinklers

On December 05, 2018 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Lazenby, Ryan, Temaca Irrigation Llc, and Gomez, Guadalupe, Gomez, James, Temaca Lawn Sprinklers, Temaca Lawn Sprinkler'S, Inc., for Employment in the District Court of Hennepin County.

Preview
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/24/2019 4:20 PM

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CASE TYPE: CIVIL OTHER

Ryan Lazenby, and Court File No. 27-CV-18-19659
Temaca Irrigation LLC, (The Hon. Joseph Klein)
Plaintiffs,

VS. MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND
AMENDMENT OF THE SCHEDULING
ORDER
Guadalupe Gomez, James Gomez
Temaca Lawn Sprinkler's, Inc. d.b.a.
Temaca Lawn Sprinklers,
Defendants.

Plaintiffs submit this Response to Defendants’ “Notice of Motion and Motion for

Temporary Injunction, New Hearing Date and Award of Attorney Fees”. Defendants are not

entitled to the extraordinary remedy 0f a temporary injunction because they cannot show their

remedy at law is inadequate, or that they will suffer irreparable injury absent such relief.

Moreover, Defendants’ motion is based upon an Amended Complaint that they have not sought or

obtained leave t0 ﬁle. That Complaint contains claims that would not survive summaryjudgment,

and therefore Defendants should not be allowed leave t0 ﬁle it. Plaintiffs respectﬁllly ask that

Defendants’ motion be denied in its entirety.

ARGUMENT
I. Defendants’ Motion for Temporarv Relief.

Motions for Temporary Injunctions are governed by Minnesota Rule 0f Civil Procedure

65.02. See Minn. R. CiV. P. 65.02. Temporary injunctions are an extraordinary remedy. Queen
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/24/2019 4:20 PM

City C0nst., Inc. v. City ofRochester, 604 N.W.2d 368, 372 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). Irreparable

injury must exist before a court can grant a temporary injunction. Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds

& Associates, Ina, 278 N.W.2d 81, 92 (Minn. 1979). The purpose of a temporary injunction is

t0 maintain the status quo 0f a matter in controversy until a trial 0n the merits so that the effect of

any judgment shall not be impaired by the acts 0f the parties during the litigation. Pickering v.

Pasco Mktg., Inc, 228 N.W.2d 562 (Minn. 1975); Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm’n v.

Minnesota Twins Partnership, 638 N.W.2d 214 (Minn. App. 2002). Temporary injunctions are

designed to preserve current relationships until a trial can be held on the merits. Sanbom Mfg. C0.

v. Currie, 500 N.W.2d 161 (Minn. App. 1993).

A motion for a temporary injunction must consider ﬁve factors enumerated in the decision
ofDahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor C0., 137 N.W.2d 314 (Minn. 1965). The Dahlberg factors are:

“(1) the nature and background 0f the relationship between the parties preexisting the dispute

giving rise to the request for relief; (2) the harm to be suffered by plaintiff if the temporary restraint

is denied as compared to that inﬂicted on defendant if the injunction issues pending trial; (3) the

likelihood that one party 0r the other Will prevail on the merits When the fact situation is Viewed

in light 0f established precedents ﬁxing the limits of equitable relief; (4) the aspects 0f the fact

situation, if any, which permit or require consideration 0f public policy expressed in the statutes,

State and Federal; and (5) the administrative burdens involved in judicial supervision and

enforcement of the temporary decree.” Id. at 321-322.

Here, Defendants have not submitted any memorandum 0f law or made any arguments

under the Dahlberg factors. Plaintiffs are left to speculate as t0 Defendants” basis for their motion.

The relief sought by Defendants in their submissions consists 0f an order restraining Plaintiffs

from operating in the lawn irrigation business in general, prohibiting Plaintiffs from encumbering
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/24/2019 4:20 PM

assets, and for Plaintiff t0 escrow funds totaling $5,039.66. Defendants’ Proposed Order seeks

additional relief including an order requiring Plaintiffs to escrow all funds received from their

irrigation business.

Defendants essentially seek to put Plaintiffs out of business Via an injunction that is

purportedly to maintain the status quo. The requested relief would not maintain the status quo.

Instead, it would end Plaintiffs’ business, presumably out of spite and Without long-term beneﬁt

t0 Defendants. Defendants currently d0 not have any counterclaims, and even if leave to amend

is granted, they are unlikely to succeed on their requests for relief. Even if the Court were to ﬁnd

in Defendants’ favor at trial, an award 0f monetary damages would adequately compensate them.

Defendants requested preliminary injunction should be denied.

1. Relationship between the Parties

Plaintiff Lazenby and Defendant Guadalupe Gomez had a contractual relationship related

t0 the purchase 0f the business in question. Nothing regarding the relationship of the parties favors

granting Defendants’ requested preliminary injunction.

2. Balance 0f the Harms

The second factor t0 be weighed by the court is the harm suffered by the moving party if

the injunction is denied versus the harm suffered by the party that is enjoined. Here, granting

Defendants’ requested injunction would likely harm both parties, and therefore it should be denied.

In order to obtain an injunction, Defendants “must establish that legal remedies are

inadequate and that an injunction must issue t0 prevent great and irreparable injury.” Metro. Sports

Facilities Comm’n v. Minnesota Twins P'ship, 638 N.W.2d 214, 222 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002); see

also St. Jude Med, Inc. v. Carter, 913 N.W.2d 678, 683 (Minn. 2018). The movant’s own poor

ﬁnancial state is generally not grounds for a temporary injunction. See Haley v. Forcelle, 669
27-CV-1 8-1 9659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/24/201 9 4:20 PM

N.W.2d 48, 56 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) (“Further, insufﬁciency 0f savings 0r difﬁculty in obtaining

other employment generally will not support a ﬁnding 0f irreparable injury”).

Here, Defendants” primary rationale for injunctive relief appears to be that Guadalupe

Gomez may suffer ﬁnancial distress if the injunction is not granted and that Plaintiffs will be

enriched by their continued use 0f the business in question. Defendants have a remedy for this,

monetary damages as part 0f a ﬁnal adjudication 0n the merits. As such, Defendants cannot show

that they do not have an adequate remedy at law, and a temporary injunction should not be granted.

See St. Jude Med, Ina, 913 N.W.2d at 683 (Minn. 2018).

Moreover, the requested injunction does far more than provide Defendants some ﬁmds t0

help Guadalupe Gomez’s ﬁnancial situation. Defendants’ proposed injunction would:

Ryan Lazenby and Temaca Lawn Sprinklers, Inc. d.b.a. Temaca
restrain Plaintiffs
Lawn Sprinklers, now operated as Temaca Irrigation, LLC (“Temaca”) and any
agent 0r associated person associated with Plaintiff Ryan Lazenby and Temaca,
from providing irrigation and irrigation- related services t0 Temaca customers

(Notice of Motion and Motion for Temporary Injunction, New Hearing Date and Award 0f

Attorney Fees). In their proposed Order, Defendants also request that:

any monetary compensation or receivables received or retained by Plaintiffs as a
result of the operation 0f Temaca Irrigation LLC 0r related irrigation types of
services shall be sent to counsel for Defendants and placed in an escrow account t0
be maintained by counsel for Defendants

(Proposed Temporary Injunction,) (sic). The net effect of these requests would be t0 destroy

Plaintiffs’ business by enjoining the operation thereof and directing the few accounts receivable

still outstanding to Defendants. This would end Temaca Irrigation, LLC and severely harm

Plaintiffs.

’
In contrast, the requested reliefwould not ultimately beneﬁt Defendants. Ending Plaintiffs

business provides them no monetary beneﬁt. That is, unless Defendants have entered the lawn
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/24/2019 4:20 PM

irrigation business as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Plaintiffs submit this may be the real

motivation behind the requested relief. Defendants’ attempted use of this motion t0 clear the way

for their own prohibited conduct is ﬁthher addressed below.

Defendants may obtain some funds if Plaintiffs’ accounts receivable are intercepted and

directed towards them. However, destroying the business will ultimately be a futile exercise that

beneﬁts no one. If Defendants were t0 ultimately obtain a judgment, their requested injunction

would likely have mined their primary means 0f obtaining satisfaction. Destroying Plaintiffs’

business is utterly inappropriate at this preliminary state.

Defendants request to enj oin Plaintiffs from encumbering or transferring business assets is

likewise unnecessary. Defendants’ have n0 evidence any such conduct is occurring and, even if

they did, have not identiﬁed how it would harm them. Moreover, the equipment in question was

already paid for by the initial $63,000.00 payment from Plaintiff Lazenby t0 Defendant Guadalupe

Gomez. (Veriﬁed Complaint Exhibit A.) The business purchase agreement contains n0 security

agreement covering these assets. (Id.) Defendants have not shown how this requested relief will

beneﬁt them, and restraining Plaintiffs’ ability to utilize their assets harms Plaintiffs.

This factor weighs in favor of denying Defendants’ requested injunction.

3. Likelihood 0f Success

Defendants currently do not have any counterclaims and cannot succeed 0n the merits until

they are granted leave to amend their December 2018 Answer. Defendants’ notice of motion and

motion does not invoke Minnesota Rule 0f Civil Procedure 15 or request leave to ﬁle an Amended

Answer and Counterclaims. Plaintiffs would oppose any such motion if it were brought. These

issues are further addressed below in Section III.
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/24/2019 4:20 PM

Even if Defendants were granted leave t0 amend their Answer, they still cannot establish a

likelihood 0f success on the merits for their added claims. Defendants’ ﬁlings state claims for

breach 0f contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. Defendants’ counterclaims sound primarily in

breach of contract arising out of the parties’ business purchase agreement. First, Defendants’

submissions do not address whether Defendant Guadalupe Gomez committed a material breach 0f

the employment contract that excused Plaintiffs’ performance. Plaintiffs’ Veriﬁed Complaint and

December 0f 2018 submissions establish that Defendant Guadalupe Gomez violated the restrictive

covenant contained in the purchase agreement. This is a material breach of the agreement that

allowed Plaintiffs to withhold performance and sue for damages. See BOB Acres, LLC v.

Schumacher Farms, LLC, 797 N.W.2d 723, 728 (Minn. Ct. App. 201 1) (deﬁning a material breach

as a breach that is “signiﬁcant enough to permit the aggrieved party to elect t0 treat the breach as

total (rather than partial), thus excusing that party from ﬁthher performance and affording it the

right to sue for damages.”) (internal quotations omitted). Second, Defendants’ motion seeks t0

prevent Plaintiffs from operating in the lawn irrigation business. Defendants have essentially

asked the Court to enforce a non-compete agreement. However, there is no non-compete binding

Plaintiffs in the Agreement. (Plaintiffs’ Veriﬁed Complaint Exhibit A.) Defendants seek to turns

the parties’ contract on its head. As noted above, this request is likely tailored t0 give them an

edge in their unfair competition with Plaintiffs.

Even if the Court disagreed With the above analysis at trial, Defendants would still only be

entitled to monetary damages. Defendants’ breach 0f contract damages, if successful, would be

the amount 0f payments Defendants would have received under the contract minus any offset the

Court ﬁnds for Defendants’ own breach. Peters v. Mut. Ben. Life Ins. C0., 420 N.W.2d 908, 915

(Minn. Ct. App. 1988) (“the appropriate measure of damages for breach of contract is that amount
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/24/2019 4:20 PM

which will place the plaintiff in the same situation as if the contract had been performed”).

Defendants appear to be laboring under the assumption that a breach 0f contract claim would allow

them to retake the business sold t0 Plaintiff Lazenby. This is not the correct measure of damages

under Minnesota law.

Defendants’ fraud claims likewise face substantial issues at trial. Defendants’ argument

appears t0 be that Plaintiff Lazenby falsely agreed t0 execute certain amendments t0 the purchase

agreement in order t0 induce Defendant Guadalupe Gomez into entering into it. Although

Defendant claims at least one witness to these representations, it is Defendants’ bare assertion

against Plaintiff Lazenby’s word for purposes of this motion. Plaintiffs submit this is insufﬁcient

evidence to support the extraordinary relief sought in its motion. Moreover, even ifthe Court were

to agree with Defendants 0n their fraud claims, the proper measure of damages under this count

would likewise be monetary, “out ofpocket damages.” Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc. , 389 N.W.2d

194, 199 (Minn. 1986).

Defendants’ other counterclaims for breach of employment contract and conversion fail t0

state a valid claim, and are addressed in Section III below. Defendants’ unjust enrichment claim

in Count V largely tracks with their breach 0f contract claim and is not grounds for an injunction.
Count VI is addressed in Section IV below. Defendants’ defamation claims do not state any actual

damages apart from attorneys’ fees, which are addressed in Section V below. None 0fthese counts

could function as the basis of the requested preliminary injunction.

Defendants currently do not have any counterclaims upon which they could prevail. Even

if the Court were t0 grant Defendants leave to amend their Answer, Defendants have not shown a

high likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, even if Defendants were t0 prevail, they

would only be entitled to monetary damages. Destroying Plaintiff Lazenby’s business by
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/24/2019 4:20 PM

preventing him from operating does nothing t0 preserve the status quo and would be a remedy

exceeding that available to Defendants at trial. Defendants have not established a likelihood of

success 0n the merits, and their motion should be denied.

5. Administrative Burden

If Defendants’ injunction were granted, the Court would have to supervise the redirection

0f Plaintiffs’ funds and accounts receivable t0 Defendants. This would require the Court t0 insert

itself into Defendants’ accounts and ﬁnances. This is n0 small task. The Court would also have

to interpose itself into Defendants’ business relations to ensure he is not operating in the ﬁeld of

lawn irrigation. Therefore, this factor weighs against grating Defendants’ proposed injunction.

6. Bonding

Defendants’ motion paperwork does not address a proposed bond as required by Minnesota

Rule 0f Civil Procedure 65.03. (“No temporary restraining order 0r temporary injunction shall be

granted except upon the giving 0f security by the applicant”) Defendants seek t0 destroy

Plaintiffs’ business without providing any security whatsoever. A bond of at least $300,000.00
would be necessary to protect Plaintiffs’ interest in the business. This ﬁgure is based on the value

of the business at the time 0f sale and Plaintiffs’ work increasing its value.

II. Defendants’ Motion t0 Amend the Scheduling Order.

Defendants seek amendment of the Court’s scheduling order t0 move the date 0f trial

closer. Defendants’ argument is primarily based on claims of ﬁnancial hardship. If the Court

were to bump up trial every time a party had ﬁnancial hardship and wanted a quicker decision,

nearly every trial would be referred to the expedited litigation track. See MN ST GEN PRAC Rule

1. This case involves a business purchase, Violation 0f a non—compete agreement, and allegations

0f lost business revenue. The matters involved require discovery and a full district court process.
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/24/2019 4:20 PM

Defendants have not presented any legal basis for amending the scheduling order to move up the

trial date. Defendants’ request should therefore be denied.

III. Defendants’ Pleadings.

Defendants’ requests raise the issue 0f Whether they have counterclaims upon which

temporary relief could be granted. Defendants’ original answer was executed 0n December 12,

2018 and served upon Plaintiffs around that time. Their Answer was ﬁled around December 31,

2018. On March 20, 2019 another document named “Response to Plaintiff‘s Request for

Temporary Injunction, Answer to Plaintiff’s Veriﬁed Complaint and Defendant’s Motion for

Temporary Relief and Defendant’s Veriﬁed Complaint” was ﬁled and served, along With a

document named “Supplement t0 Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff‘s Veriﬁed Complaint and

Supplement t0 Defendant’s Veriﬁed Complaint”. The second of these ﬁlings contained a prayer

for relief, but no causes of action. Served on April 17, 2019, contemporaneously with Defendants”

pending “Notice of Motion and Motion for Temporary Injunction, New Hearing Date and Award

0f Attorney Fees”, is a document entitled “Amended Veriﬁed Complaint” dated April 16, 2019.

This document does not purport t0 answer any of the claims in Plaintiff’ s Complaint, but appears

t0 function as a stand-alone Complaint.

Under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 15.01, 20 days after service 0f an Answer, that

Answer may only be amended by “leave of the Court” or “written consent of the adverse party.”

Defendants’ March and April pleadings were ﬁled over 20 days after their Answer and require

either leave 0f the Court or written consent from Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have never been asked for

nor given such consent. The Court has likewise not granted Defendants leave to amend.

Defendants’ March and April ﬁlings are not valid pleadings under the Minnesota Rules 0f Civil

Procedure.
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/24/2019 4:20 PM

Defendants currently have no motion to amend pending before the Court. Neither

Defendants’ Notice 0f Motion and Motion nor Proposed Order reference Rule 15.01. Defendants

submitted no memorandum 0f law referencing case law under Rule 15 .0 1 and
,
made n0 arguments

in favor 0f amendment. Despite this, Plaintiffs Will brieﬂy outline Why Defendants’ latest ﬁlings

should not be allowed as an amended pleading.

First, Defendants’ current April 2019 pleading makes n0 Answer t0 Plaintiffs’ original

claims. Defendants presumably seek t0 have two 0r three separate pleadings, a December 2018 0r

March 2019 Answer and an April 2019 Complaint. This does not comport with Rule 7.01 which

allows only certain types 0f pleadings: a “complaint and an answer” and, under certain

circumstances, a third “reply.” Clarity is required on What exactly Defendants maintain are valid

pleadings in this case.

Minnesota Rule 0f Civil Procedure 15.01 allows amendment ofpleadings When “justice so

requires.” Subsequent case law has expounded on this standard and outlined When motions to

amend should be denied. Motions to amend should be denied when they result in prejudice to the

other party. Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Properties, Ina, 743 N.W.2d 267, 272 (Minn.

2008). Moreover, motions t0 amend should be denied When the proposed amendment cannot

survive a summaryjudgment motion. Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320,

332 (Minn. 2004).

Several 0f Defendants’ newly listed claims are legally insufﬁcient, and could not withstand

a summary judgment motion under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Defendants list a claim

for conversion in Count II of their Complaint. Defendants cursorily assert that Plaintiffs converted

Temaca Lawn Sprinklers and the assets 0f the purchased business. Conversion is the willful

interference with another’s property. Williamson v. Prasciunas, 661 N.W.2d 645, 649 (Minn. Ct.

10
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/24/2019 4:20 PM

App. 2003). “The elements of common law conversion are: (1) plaintiff holds a property interest;

and (2) defendant deprives plaintiff ofthat interest.” Id. When property is held “lawful as a matter

0f contract right” there can be n0 conversion. Erickson v. Midland Nat. Bank & Tr. C0. 0f

Minneapolis, 285 N.W. 61 1, 612 (Minn. 1939). Here, there is no dispute Plaintiff holds Temaca

Irrigation LLC and the assets of the business purchased from Defendants Guadalupe Gomez

lawﬁllly by Virtue 0f the parties” business purchase agreement. Defendants have not shown that

contract is void, and therefore they have n0 grounds for stating a conversion claim. Defendants’

conversion claim would not withstand summary judgment.

Count VII of Defendants’ April Complaint states a count for “Violation 0f Employment

Agreement in Purchase Agreement and False Accusations 0f Violations of a Non-Compete.” (sic)

This count requests lost wages and wage reductions arising out of Guadalupe Gomez’s termination

from Temaca Irrigation, LLC. The Complaint refers to the Purchase Agreement as the source 0f

the purported Employment Agreement. There is no employment term found in the signed purchase

agreement. (Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Veriﬁed Complaint.) The executed Agreement contains an

integration clause. (Id.) The April 28, 20 1 7 unsigned and unenforceable Gene Shavik amendment,

Which Plaintiffs believe Defendants are alluding t0, does reference Plaintiffs employing Defendant

Guadalupe Gomez at a weekly salary 0f $ 1 ,000.00. Because the Shavik amendment is unexecuted,

and the original agreement was completely integrated, the parol evidence rule bars enforcement of

any employment terms found in therein. See Apple Valley Red—E—Mix, Inc. v. Mills- Winﬁeld Eng'g

Sales, Ina, 436 N.W.2d 121, 123 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).

Additionally, there is n0 term of employment in the unexecuted document. The most that

could be created would be an at-Will employment relationship. See Gunderson v. All. ofComputer

Professionals, Ina, 628 N.W.2d 173, 181 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) (noting Minnesota’s presumption

11
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/24/2019 4:20 PM

of at will employment dealing with an indeﬁnite term). As such, Plaintiffs had the right t0

terminate Defendant Guadalupe Gomez’s employment at any time, without cause. Id. Defendants

have not stated a valid claim for Violation of an employment agreement, and any such claim would

not survive summary judgment. Such an amendment t0 Defendants’ pleadings should be denied.

IV. Defendants Have N0 Right t0 the Converted Settlement Payments.

In their Complaint and Request for a Temporary Injunction, Defendants claim damages

and seek temporary relief for a purported Violation 0f the Court’s Order. Plaintiffs have not

violated any Court Order. Defendants admit to intercepting checks totaling $5,039.66 covering

amounts owed t0 Plaintiff Temaca Irrigation LLC by third-party customers and then refusing t0

turn over those funds to their rightful owner.

In December of 20 1 9, Plaintiffs moved for temporary relief regarding these funds and other

sums held by Defendants in Violation of the parties” restrictive covenant. Plaintiffs sought t0

escrow any funds possessed by Defendants related t0 lawn irrigation services, including the

intercepted checks. (Proposed Order for Injunction 1] XIII.) At the Injunction hearing, counsel for

Defendants brought copies of the checks. The Court orally ordered the checks held in escrow,

and allowed Plaintiffs an opportunity t0 conduct discovery and inspect the checks. The Court

later issued a written order denying Plaintiffs’ request for an Injunction in its entirety. This Order’s

application to the escrowed checks was unclear, but it appeared to deny all temporary relief sought

by Plaintiffs and presumably superseded the Court’s oral Order regarding the checks.

After the December 2018 hearing, many of the checks held by Defendants expired,

resulting in their makers receiving stop payment notices. Plaintiffs did not make collection

attempts upon the customers Who remitted the intercepted checks. (Lazenby Afﬁdavit at 1] 4.)

However, several 0f Plaintiffs’ customers reached out to determine why payment was stopped on

12
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/24/2019 4:20 PM

their checks. (Id. at 11 6.) Three 0f these customers remitted replacement checks 0f $95.00 directly

to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs cashed these checks. (Id. at 1] 12.)

Plaintiffs’ conduct did not Violate any Court Order. Plaintiffs are unaware of any Order

that prevents Plaintiffs from accepting new payments from their customers. Nevertheless,

Plaintiffs will escrow the $285.00 in received payments if the Court so orders.

V. Defendants Cannot Recover Attorney’s Fees.

In Minnesota, attorneys’ fees may only be awarded if authorized in a statute 0r contract.

Schwickert, Inc. v. Winnebago Seniors, Ltd, 680 N.W.2d 79, 87 (Minn. 2004); Horodenski v.

Lyndale Green Townhome Ass'n, Ina, 804 N.W.2d 366, 371 (Minn. Ct. App. 201 1). Defendants

point to neither statutory nor contractual authorization for their attorneys’ fees request. Moreover,

they point t0 no authority whatsoever allowing a recovery of attorneys’ fees on a motion for a

preliminary injunction. Defendants have n0 legal basis for recovering attorneys” fees, and their

motion should be denied.

CONCLUSION
Defendants’ request for temporary relief is based 0n counterclaims that do not yet exist,

and the motion should be denied for that reason alone. Even if the Court allows amendment of

Defendants’ pleadings, Defendants have not shown the type of irreparable injury necessary for the

Court t0 issue the extraordinary remedy of a temporary injunction. The requested relief will not

maintain the status quo, and is inconsistent With the remedies available to Defendants if they are

allowed leave to amend their complaint. Likewise, Defendants’ requested amendments to

scheduling order and attorneys’ fees are legally baseless, and should be denied. Plaintiffs’

respectfully request Defendants’ motion be denied in its entirety.

13
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/24/2019 4:20 PM

BURNS & HANSEN, P.A

Dated: April 24, 2019 By: KirkA. Tisher
Erik F. Hansen, ID# 303410
ehansen@bumshansen.com
Kirk A. Tisher, ID# 0397712
ktisher@burnshansen.com
8401 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN
55426
Telephone (952) 564-6262
Facsimile (952) 564-6263

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Plaintiffs acknowledge that costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys’ and Witness

fees may be awarded to the opposing party pursuant t0 Minn. Stat. § 549.21 1. subd. 2.

Dated: April 24, 2019 s/ Kirk A. Tisher
Kirk A. Tisher, ID# 0397712

Case Info

Judge

Klein, Joseph R. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 24, 2019

Case Filing Date

December 05, 2018

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: Ryan Lazenby, Temaca Irrigation LLC vs Guadalupe Gomez, James Gomez, Temaca Lawn Sprinkler's, Inc., d.b.a. Temaca Lawn Sprinklers

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties