Opinion ID: 1189066
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: 2007: Injunction Revisited

Text: In July 2007, while its appeal was pending before the Minnesota Court of Appeals, Northshore filed a motion with the federal district court seeking clarification of and relief from the injunction's control city standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The district court denied Northshore's motion, concluding that Northshore lacked standing to bring its claim under Rule 60(b) because it had not demonstrated that its alleged injury would be fully redressed by a favorable ruling. United States v. Northshore Mining Co., No. 72-0019, 2007 WL 4563418, at  (D.Minn. Dec.21, 2007) (unpublished). The district court reasoned that the control city standard had become an independent state standard as a result of its inclusion in Northshore's MPCA permits; thus, a favorable decision concerning the injunction would not affect Northshore's duty to comply with the state permits. Id. at . The district court went on, however, to consider sua sponte the continuing need for the injunction, holding that the 1975 injunction no longer has any force or effect. The injunction has been effectively incorporated into state administrative law, in the form of the control city language in Northshore's permits. Any conclusion that the Court might make on the meaning of the control city standard would have no meaningful effect because Northshore, as the only party bound by the injunction, is also required to comply with the independent control city standard in its state permits. The injunction has outlived its enforceability. It therefore is best described as moot. See 43A C.J.S. Injunctions § 90 (If the thing sought to be enjoined in fact takes place, is no longer taking place, or can no longer take place, the grant or denial of an injunction becomes moot.).... Id. Accordingly, the district court ordered that [t]he Injunction as modified by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ... is MOOT. Id. at . [3] Northshore, the United States, and Minnesota and the MPCA now appeal from the district court's order. In its appeal, Northshore does not challenge the court's judgment holding that the injunction's air-emissions provisions are moot. Instead, Northshore argues that the district court erred in concluding that Northshore lacked standing to bring its claim under Rule 60(b) and that the control city standard in the state permit operates as an independent administrative standard separate from the injunction. The United States in its cross-appeal argues that the district court erred in vacating the injunction as moot. Similarly, Minnesota and the MPCA in their cross-appeal ask[ ] this Court to clarify that the federal injunction remains valid and in effect because Northshore failed to establish a legitimate basis for dissolving the injunction.