This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Filed August 15, 2006
Ramsey County District Court
File No. C1-05-8336
Christopher K. Wachtler, Collins, Buckley, Sauntry & Haugh, P.L.L.P., W-1100 First Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and Minge, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
In this appeal from an order denying a motion for a temporary injunction and dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying a temporary injunction and erred in determining that appellant does not have standing to seek injunctive relief. We affirm.
The federation brought an action against the city seeking (1) a declaration that using the qualifications-rating process for the Fire Dispatcher I position violates civil-service rules and the St. Paul City Charter because it does not provide an objective method for scoring applicants; and (2) an injunction against using the qualifications-rating process to make any promotions. The federation moved for a temporary injunction, and the city agreed to delay any scoring of the pending examination until the district court could hear and determine the motion. The district court denied the federation’s motion and dismissed its complaint for lack of standing. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
argues that the district court erred in concluding that the federation does not
have standing to bring its action. “The
reviewing court considers de novo the question of standing, as an aspect of
party has standing if (1) the legislature has conferred standing by statute, or
(2) a party has suffered ‘injury-in-fact.’”
The federation argues that it has standing because if the qualifications-rating process is used to make promotions, its members will suffer adverse employment consequences. But the federation’s argument is based on injury that someone will suffer if the qualifications-rating process is implemented and promotions are made; it is not based on an injury that any identified member will suffer. Because no promotion has been made, no identified federation member has been injured by the qualifications-rating process.
Warth v. Seldin, 422
The association must allege that its members, or any one of them, are suffering immediate or threatened injury as a result of the challenged action of the sort that would make out a justiciable case had the members themselves brought suit. . . . [S]o long as the nature of the claim and of the relief sought does not make the individual participation of each injured party indispensable to proper resolution of the cause, the association may be an appropriate representative of its members, entitled to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.
the Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized, Warth
relaxes requirements for associational standing when equitable relief is sought. Philip
Morris, 551 N.W.2d at 498. The
federation is seeking equitable relief.
But even under the relaxed requirements in Warth, an association “can have standing as the representative of
its members only if it has alleged facts sufficient to make out a case or
controversy had the members themselves brought suit.” Warth,
at 516, 95
The district court did not err in concluding that the federation does not have standing to sue and dismissing the federation’s suit. Because the district court did not err in dismissing the suit, it is not necessary for us to address whether the district court erred in denying an injunction.
 The federation
appealed from the order denying the motion for temporary injunction and dismissing
the action. After the appeal was taken,
judgment dismissing the action was entered.
The city argues that the proper appeal was from the judgment. But the supreme court has held that when an
action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the order of dismissal is
appealable. City of