Doward v. City of Kettle River
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-03970
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Doward v. City of Kettle River, Judge Provinzino denied Doward’s preliminary-injunction motion because her delay did not show irreparable harm.
Monique Doward’s request for immediate restoration of water service was denied; the order concerned her motion against the City of Kettle River and did not rule on the City’s additional motion-practice argument.
What happened
In Doward v. City of Kettle River, Monique Doward asked the court to order the City of Kettle River to restore water service to her house. She said the City had refused to restart service after a disputed water bill was reversed and payments were made. Doward represented herself and brought claims under federal civil-rights law and Minnesota law.
The court focused on whether Doward faced harm that could not be repaired later. It found that she waited at least six months after the May 10, 2024 water shutoff to file her lawsuit and five more months to seek an injunction. The court concluded that this delay was unreasonable and that she sought relief after it was no longer possible to preserve the earlier situation.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino denied Doward’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court ruled that Doward had not shown the required irreparable harm and did not address the City’s additional argument about defective motion practice.
The detailed version
- Doward v. City of Kettle River · No. 0:24-cv-03970
- Laura M. Provinzino
- May 30, 2025
Background
Monique Doward filed this case against the City of Kettle River; several City officials; Advanced Utility Solutions; and JT’s Towing Company. The opinion states that Doward represented herself. Her amended complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Minnesota law, including claims concerning the shutoff of her water, water billing, the towing of her vehicle, unequal treatment, unpaid City Council service, retaliation, wage laws, negligence, unjust enrichment, and emotional distress.
Doward alleged that the City and Advanced Utility Solutions shut off her water on May 10, 2024, during disputes over estimated and allegedly incorrect billing. She also alleged that the City charged estimated bills and late fees, refused to forgive her past-due bill even though it forgave another resident’s bill, and required meter replacement before restoring service. On March 26, 2025, she moved for a preliminary injunction—a temporary court order issued before final judgment—asking the court to immediately restore water service. She argued that the lack of water threatened her health, safety, and ability to live in her home.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show four things: a likelihood of success on the claims, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, that the balance of hardships favors the party seeking relief, and that the injunction serves the public interest. The court emphasized that failure to show irreparable harm alone is enough to deny the motion.
The court found that Doward had acted with unreasonable delay. By her own account, the water was shut off on May 10, 2024. She waited at least six months after the shutoff to file her initial complaint and another five months to seek the injunction, for a total delay of at least eleven months. The court stated that she provided no reason justifying the delay and sought the injunction after it was no longer possible to preserve the situation that existed before the shutoff. The court therefore concluded that Doward had not shown irreparable harm sufficient to justify the requested relief.
Disposition
The court DENIED Doward’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Because it denied the motion principally for failure to show irreparable harm, it did not address the City’s additional argument that Doward had not complied with requirements governing dispositive motions.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.