Minnesota Duty Disabled Association (MNDDA), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A23-1924

Minnesota Duty Disabled Association (MNDDA),
a Minnesota nonprofit corporation,
Respondent,

vs.

State of Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA),
Appellant.

Filed September 9, 2024
Reversed and remanded; motion denied.
Halbrooks, Judge *

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CV-23-5420

Marshall H. Tanick, Meyer Njus Tanick, PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Frank Langan, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Halbrooks,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant agency challenges a temporary injunction that enjoins it from
implementing recent legislative amendments, arguing that the district court abused its

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
discretion by (1) determining that respondent -association would suffer irreparable harm
without an injunction, (2) determining that the Dahlberg factors support injunctive relief,
and (3) granting the injunction without requiring respondent to post a security bond.
Appellant also moves to strike portions of respondent’s brief. Because we conclude that
respondents would not suffer an irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, we reverse the
district court’s grant of an injunction, remand for trial, and therefore deny appell ant’s
motion to strike as moot.
FACTS
This case concerns a preliminary injunction that the district court granted to
respondent Minnesota Duty Disabled Association (MNDDA) to enjoin appellant
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) from enforcing a 2023
legislative amendment to the duty- disability offset statute . See 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 48,
§ 27, at 702 (amending Minn. Stat. § 353.656, subd. 4 ( 2022)).
The Minnesota legislature amends the duty -disability offset statute.
PERA is the state agency tasked with administering several public -sector employee
retirement plans, including the “police and fire plan.” See Minn. Stat. § 353.64 (2022).
When a member of the police and fire plan is injured in the line of duty, they may be
entitled to receive duty -disability benefits , which are distributed through monthly
payments. Minn. Stat. §§ 353.01, subd. 41 (2022) , .656 (2022 & Supp. 2023).
Once a duty-disabled plan member is able to return to work, the income they receive
from that employment may be offset against their duty- disability payments. Minn. Stat.
§ 353.656., subd. 4. From 1994 to 2022, Minnesota law calculated this offset by reducing
3
the duty- disability payment “by one dollar for each three dollars by which the [plan
member’s] current monthly disability benefits [and other earnings]” exceeded their
“reemployment earnings limit.” See Minn. Stat. § 353.656, subd. 4(c) (2022); 1994 Minn.
Laws ch. 463, § 1, at 311- 12 (amending Minn. Stat. § 353.656, subd. 4 (1992)) . The
reemployment earnings limit was defined as the “greater of (1) the monthly salary earned
at the date of disability; or (2) 125 percent of the base monthly salary currently paid by the
employing governmental subdivision for similar positions.” Minn. Stat. § 353.656, subd.
4(b) (2022).
Under the amended offset provision, all duty -disability recipients required to
reapply for their benefits “on or after July 1, 2023,” are potentially subject to two offsets .
See Minn. Stat. § 353.656, subd. 4(c) (Supp. 2023) . The first offset , applied to duty-
disability recipients who have served less than 20 years , reduces their benefit payment
based on the member contribution rate and that member’s length of service. Id. , subd.
4(c)(1). The second offset takes effect when the combined total of a disabled plan
member’s duty-disability benefits and reemployment earnings exceed 100% of an active
member’s salary in a similar position. Id., subd. 4(c)(2). In that circumstance, the second
offset reduces the member’s benefit payment by “one dollar for every two dollars” that
their total monthly earnings exceed the base monthly salary, up to 125% 1 of the base
monthly salary, as opposed to the 1:3 ratio under the prior formula . Id.

1 The benefit is further reduced to a 1:1 ratio when the plan member’s monthly earnings
exceed 125% of their base monthly salary. Minn. Stat. § 353.656, subd. 4(c) (2) (Supp.
2023).
4
MNDDA sues PERA to enjoin enforcement of Minn. Stat. § 353.656.
MNDDA is a nonprofit corporation consisting of approximately 170 first responders
who are currently receiving duty- disability benefits. In October 2023, MNDDA sued
PERA, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the 2023 amendments to both the duty- disability
eligibility procedures in Minn. Stat. § 353.031 (2022 & Supp. 2023) and the offset
provisions in Minn. Stat. § 353.656 (2022 & Supp. 2023) . MNDDA’s three -count
complaint alleges that the amendments unconstitutionally impair the contractual
relationship betwee n PERA and MNDDA’s members, that promissory-estoppel preclude s
PERA from enforcing the new provisions, and that the amendments amounted to an
unconstitutional taking. MNDDA ’s complaint requested injunctive relief on each count.
In response, PERA moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
MNDDA then moved for a temporary injunction, asking the district court to suspend
enforcement of the amended provisions of Minn. Stat. §§ 353.031, .656, while the lawsuit
was pending. The district court held a hearing on MNDDA’s motion in November 2023,
at which both parties presented arguments related to the factors set forth in
Dahlberg Bros., Inc, v. Ford Motor Co., 137 N.W.2d 314, 321- 22 (Minn. 1965), for
evaluating the propriety of a temporary injunction. Both parties submitted evidence
addressing the potential harm they faced if the district court issued an unfavorable order.
Four days after the hearing, the di strict court issued a two -page order granting MNDDA’s
motion to suspend enforcement of the offset provisions in Minn. Stat. § 353.656 but
denying its motion with respect to Minn. Stat. § 353.031.
This appeal follows.
5
DECISION
The district court abused its discretion by granting MNDDA injunctive relief.
PERA asserts that the district court abused its discretion by determining that a
temporary injunction was necessary to prevent MNDDA’s members from suffering an
irreparable injury. We agree.
“A temporary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy” that preserves the
status quo before a district court can resolve the case on its merits. Miller v. Foley , 317
N.W.2d 710, 712 (Minn. 1982). Temporary injunctions should only “be granted when it
is clear” that a party will suffer irreparable harm before trial. Id. The party seeking an
injunction has the burden to establish that injunctive relief is necessary to prevent an
irreparable injury. City of Mounds View v. Metro. Airports Comm’n, 590 N.W.2d 355, 357
(Minn. App. 1999).
We review a district court’s decision to grant injunctive relief for an abuse of
discretion. First & First, LLC v. Chadco of Duluth, LLC , 999 N.W.2d 553, 557 (Minn.
App. 2023), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 20, 2024). A district court abuses its discretion by
erroneously interpreting the law or by granting an injunction when the moving party f ails
to establish an irreparable injury. DSCC v. Simon, 950 N.W.2d 280, 286 (Minn. 2020) ;
Morse v. City of Waterville, 458 N.W.2d 728, 730 (Minn. App. 1990), rev. denied (Minn.
Sept. 28, 1990).
Here, the district court determined that , absent a temporary injunction, MNDDA’s
members would face “lost household income .” Without providing further analysis, the
6
district court determined that the lost income constitutes an irreparable harm and that future
monetary damages will not provide an adequate legal remedy .
We conclude that the district court abused its discretion by determining that
MNDDA met its burden to demonstrate an irreparable injury. “[T]he temporary loss of
income . . . does not usually constitute irreparable injury.” Miller , 317 N.W.2d at 713
(quoting Sampson v. Murray , 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974)). This is because purely financial
harm can generally be compensated through a subsequent civil award. See id. (“The
possibility that adequate compensatory or other corrective relief will be available at a later
date . . . weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable harm .” (quoting Sampson, 415 U.S.
at 90) ); AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 110 N.W.2d 348, 353 (Minn.
1961).
Minnesota caselaw demonstrates that the purely financial harm alleged by MNDDA
is not sufficient to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a temporary injunction. For
example, in wrongful-termination cases, where the plaintiffs face a total loss of income
pending litigation, Minnesota courts have consistently concluded that the alleged wrongful
termination was not an “irreparable” harm because it could be cured by a subsequent
monetary award. Id. (concluding that discharged employees failed to allege irreparable
harm because reinstatement and backpay would be available if they prevailed on the
merits); Morse, 458 N.W.2d at 730 (same); Haley v. Forcelle, 669 N.W.2d 48, 57 (Minn.
App. 2003) (“We agree . . . that the loss of income and other effects of being terminated
from a job are generally insufficient to demonstrate irreparable injury, because money
damages will likely provide adequate relief .”), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003).
7
Unlike wrongful termination cases, MNDDA’s members are not facing a total loss
of income pending their lawsuit. They will still receive their duty-disability benefits along
with any additional income they may be earning, but with their offsets will be calculated
under a different statutory formula. MNDDA argues that its members relied on the prior
offset formula to pay their bills and maintain their lifestyles. But plaintiffs in wrongful-
termination cases face the same concerns, and despite having a more severe reduction in
income, their circumstances generally do not create an irreparable harm. Morse, 458
N.W.2d at 730 (“If the injunction were not issued, Morse would undoubtedly suffer the
financial woes and emotional stresses occasioned by sudden unemployment. . . . While we
do not dispute the enormity of the circumstances facing Morse, those circumstances are
insufficient to warrant the extraordinary remedy of interim injunctive relief.”).
Moreover, if MNDDA prevails on the merits at trial, any financial losses incurred
by its members during litigation can be compensated by recalculating their offsets under
the old offset provision and reimbursing the difference. See AMF Pinspotters, 110 N.W.2d
at 353 (reversing injunction because plaintiff failed to show that its damages could not be
computed in civil action); Rexton, Inc. v. State , 521 N.W.2d 51, 54 (Minn. App. 1994)
(affirming denial of temporary injunction when appellant made no showing that monetary
damages provided inadequate compensation). MNDDA contends that pursuing civil
actions would cause delays and tax judicial resources . These alleged consequences ,
however, are not sufficient to warrant injunctive relief. Miller, 317 N.W.2d at 713 ( “Mere
injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended in
the absence of a stay, are not enough.” (quoting Sampson, 415 U.S. at 90)).
8
MNDDA also cites our nonprecedential decision in State ex rel. Swanson v.
CashCall, Inc. for the proposition that future monetary damages do not provide its
members with an adequate remedy . No. A13-2086, 2014 WL 4056028 (Minn. App. Aug.
18, 2014), rev. granted (Minn. Oct. 28, 2014) and ord. granting rev. vacated (Minn. Nov.
17, 2015) . CashCall is readily distinguishable. There, the district court granted a
temporary injunction after issuing detailed findings describing the harms plaintiffs faced
beyond f inancial loss, including the defendants’ alleged misconduct in issuing negative
credit reports and engaging in predatory collection activities. Minnesota v. CashCall, Inc.,
No. 27- CV-13-12740, 2013 WL 6978561, at *11 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Sept. 6, 2013). We
affirmed, noting that the district court considered “other” harms besides financial hardship
in determining that damages were not a realistic remedy. Cash Call, 2014 WL 4056028, at
*6. Conversely, here, the only harm cited in the district court’s order is MNDDA members’
lost income, which is alone insufficient to warrant an injunction. Miller, 317 N.W.2d at
713; Morse, 458 N.W.2d at 730.
Considering that monetary damages will provide an adequate remedy to MNDDA’s
members should they prevail on the merits, their alleged temporary loss of household
income does not constitute an irreparable harm. See Miller , 317 N.W.2d at 713. Because
the lack of an irreparable harm is a sufficient basis to conclude that the district court abused
its discretion by granting the injunction, we reverse and remand for trial and do not reach
the remaining issues raised by PERA . We deny PERA’s motion to strike as moot. See
DSCC, 950 N.W.2d at 286.
Reversed and remanded; motion denied.