Injunction

These explanations for the necessity of an injunction were sent to the Sixth District Court today. The preceeding post has a link to the full memorandum.

The defendants’ responses reinforce and raise additional reasons why a temporary injunction should be issued:

1. The defendants’ affidavits admit by inference the central fact in this case: The school district entered into a binding agreement to use JCI for all professional services for implementation – including repair, remodeling and reconstruction – before there was any agreement on fee structure.

2. The plaintiffs should prevail on the merits, and laches should not apply. The contract is void as contrary to public policy; in entering into it, the defendants were unreasonably unfair to the taxpayers; the defendants can have no reasonable reliance on a contract that is contrary to public policy; and only a small percentage of the contract has been completed.

3. A temporary injunction is the only way to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, including the prejudicial delay of an interlocutory appeal and the additional enforcement problems and administrative burden that would occur if the defendants were permitted to continue with the contract between them, and to let additional related contracts, before there was a decision on the merits.

4. The Court can order a temporary injunction with the $100,000 security previously ordered.

About the author