¹û¶³´«Ã½

Case 1:17-cv-00151-DLH-CSM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA 

AEM vs North Dakota

 Defendants (State of North Dakota) and Defendant-Intervenor (NDIDA) submit this joint Proposed Findings of Fact and joint supplemental Memorandum of Law in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 

Document 68 Filed 12/08/17 Pages  1-25

Document 68-1 Filed 12/08/17 Pages 1-137

• Senate Bill 2289 benefits farmers, rural communities, and the North Dakota economy, in addition to farm equipment dealers.

   

• Moreover, there is no reasonable concern of customer confusion resulting from farm equipment dealers housing more than one farm implement brand at a singular location. Lastly, the Plaintiffs admitted that they would continue to do business in the State if SB 2289 is upheld. 

   

• Consequently, Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief should be denied for the following two fundamental reasons:

  First, Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient evidence of harm in the event that the statute became effective, and in fact, admitted that they would continue to do business within the State.

  Second, Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. Most notably, the Plaintiffs’ Contracts Clause claim fails because the challenged legislation was foreseeable and the legislation advances a significant and legitimate public purpose (benefits to farmers and to rural communities). 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief should be denied.