This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).






Watson’s Rochester Disposal, Inc.,

d/b/a Superior Services-St. Paul,





Tennis Sanitation, LLP,



Filed January 30, 2001


Klaphake, Judge


Washington County District Court

File No. C2001263


Alexandra B. Klass, Elliott A. Milhollin, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, Pillsbury Center South, Suite 1300, 220 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN  55402 (for respondent)


Joseph G. Beaton, Jr., 3109 Hennepin Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN  55408 (for appellant)


            Considered and decided by Anderson, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Harten, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N


Respondent Watson’s Rochester Disposal, Inc., brought an action for tortious interference with contract and conversion and sought a temporary injunction to prevent appellant Tennis Sanitation, LLP, from contacting respondent’s customers and removing respondent’s garbage collection containers from former customers’ property.  The district court denied the injunction, but issued a "cease and desist" order to prevent appellant from removing respondent’s containers.  Because the district court lacked authority to issue a cease and desist order absent a determination that the grounds for a temporary injunction were met, we reverse.


            The district court has discretion to grant or deny a temporary injunction, and its decision “will not be overturned on review absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” State by Ulland v. International Ass’n of Entrepreneurs, 527 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Minn. App. 1995) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr. 18, 1995).  A party requesting an injunction must establish that there is no adequate legal remedy and that an injunction is necessary to prevent great and irreparable harm.  Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assoc., Inc., 278 N.W.2d 81, 92 (Minn. 1979); Unlimited Horizon Mktg., Inc. v. Precision Hub, Inc., 533 N.W.2d 63, 66 (Minn. App. 1995).  The court must weigh the following five Dahlberg factors in considering whether to grant a temporary injunction: 

(1) the nature and background of the parties’ relationship prior to the dispute; (2) the harm plaintiff may suffer if the injunction is denied compared to the harm inflicted upon defendant if the injunction is granted; (3) the likelihood one party will prevail on the merits; (4) public policy as expressed in the statutes; and (5) the administrative burdens involved in judicial supervision of the injunction.


Unlimited Horizon, 533 N.W.2d at 65-6; (citing Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75, 137 N.W.2d 314, 321-22 (1965)).  “The failure to show irreparable harm is, by itself, a sufficient ground upon which to deny a preliminary injunction.”  Morse v. City of Waterville, 458 N.W.2d 728, 729 (Minn. App. 1990) (citations omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1990).

Here, in reference to appellant’s removal of respondent’s containers, the district court did not consider or make findings on the Dahlberg factors.  See Unlimited Horizon, 533 N.W.2d at 65-66.  It thus abused its discretion in issuing a cease and desist order, which had the same effect as the granting of a temporary injunction.