Motion for Preliminary Injunction in North Dakota

Background

“The preservation of the status quo recognizes that the most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction is a demonstration that, if the preliminary injunction is not granted, the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm before a decision on the merits can be rendered.” (See Vorachek v. Citizens State Bank of Lankin (1990) 461 N.W.2d 580, 585.)

“Thus, a preliminary injunction usually will be denied if the applicant has an adequate alternative remedy in the form of money damages or other relief.” (See Vorachek v. Citizens State Bank of Lankin (1990) 461 N.W.2d 580, 585.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Generally, "a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy and should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." (See Vorachek v. Citizens State Bank of Lankin (1990) 461 N.W.2d 580, 585.)

“A trial court's discretion to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is based upon the following factors: (1) substantial probability of succeeding on the merits; (2) irreparable injury; (3) harm to other interested parties; and (4) effect on the public interest.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is within the discretion of the trial court, and its determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless it abused its discretion.” (See Vorachek v. Citizens State Bank of Lankin (1990) 461 N.W.2d 580, 585.)

“A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “a preliminary injunction will be dissolved when the reasons for granting it have ceased to exist and it can no longer serve any useful purpose.” (See Brace v. Steele County (1950) 77 N.D. 276, 282.)

It is also well settled that “this court has declared that the purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo and protect the rights of the plaintiff pending a determination on the merits.” (See Gillies v. Radke (1952) 78 N.D. 974, 985-86.)