preliminary injunction where irreparable harm was not shown). A preliminary injunction may be granted under MCR 3.310(A) only when the plaintiff can make a particularized showing of irreparable harm that will occur before the merits of the claim can be considered. Lash v City of Traverse City, 479 Mich 180, 196; 735 NW2d 628 (2007) (citation omitted). Irreparable harm means noncompensable injury for which there is “a no legal measurement of damages or for which damages cannot be determined with a sufficient degree of certainty.” Thermatool Corp v Borzym, 227 Mich App 366, 377; 575 NW2d 334 (1998) (circuit court’s granting of preliminary injunction found to be an abuse of discretion). An injunction will not lie upon the mere apprehension of future injury or where the threatened injury is speculative or conjectural. Dunlap v City of Southfield, 54 Mich App 398, 403; 221 NW2d 237 (1974). When dealing with an action challenging the validity of a law, irreparable injury referred to must result from the acts of the “[t]he public officials in enforcing the allegedly invalid law.” 195 Jeffery v Clinton Township, Mich App 260, 264; 489 NW2d 211 (1992) (circuit court abused its discretion issuing injunction prohibiting township from enforcing local ordinance). A. Plaintiff Cannot Allege Harm to Defendant City’s Police Officers. Plaintiff’s primary argument regarding irreparable harm concerns alleged harm to Defendant City’s police officers, the sworn officers of the Grand Rapids Police Department (“GRPD”). As an initial matter, Plaintiff lacks standing to allege harm to GRPD officers because he does not have a substantial interest which is distinct from the general public. See Lansing Sch Ed Ass'n v Lansing Bd of Ed, 487 Mich 349, 374-378; 792 NW2d 686 (2010). Neither Plaintiff, nor Kent County, nor the State of Michigan employs the sworn officers of the GRPD. Furthermore, Plaintiff is not the legal advisor or legal
preliminary injunction where irreparable harm was not shown). A preliminary injunction may be granted under MCR 3.310(A) only when the plaintiff can make a particularized showing of irreparable harm that will occur before the merits of the claim can be considered. Lash v City of Traverse City, 479 Mich 180, 196; 735 NW2d 628 (2007) (citation omitted). Irreparable harm means “a noncompensable injury for which there is no legal measurement of damages or for which damages cannot be determined with a sufficient degree of certainty.” Thermatool Corp v Borzym, 227 Mich App 366, 377; 575 NW2d 334 (1998) (circuit court’s granting of preliminary injunction found to be an abuse of discretion). An injunction will not lie upon the mere apprehension of future injury or where the threatened injury is speculative or conjectural. Dunlap v City of Southfield, 54 Mich App 398, 403; 221 NW2d 237 (1974). When dealing with an action challenging the validity of a law, “[t]he irreparable injury referred to must result from the acts of the public officials in enforcing the allegedly invalid law.” Jeffery v Clinton Township, 195 Mich App 260, 264; 489 NW2d 211 (1992) (circuit court abused its discretion issuing injunction prohibiting township from enforcing local ordinance). A. Plaintiff Cannot Allege Harm to Defendant City’s Police Officers. Plaintiff’s primary argument regarding irreparable harm concerns alleged harm to Defendant City’s police officers, the sworn officers of the Grand Rapids Police Department (“GRPD”). As an initial matter, Plaintiff lacks standing to allege harm to GRPD officers because he does not have a substantial interest which is distinct from the general public. See Lansing Sch Ed Ass'n v Lansing Bd of Ed, 487 Mich 349, 374-378; 792 NW2d 686 (2010). Neither Plaintiff, nor Kent County, nor the State of Michigan employs the sworn officers of the GRPD. Furthermore, Plaintiff is not the legal advisor or legal
CITY'S%20BRIEF%20PRELIM%20INJUNCT.docx