Stay of Enforcement Request - Minnesota

STAY OF ENFORCEMENT REQUEST — MINNESOTA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Stay Request Cover Letter
2. Formal Motion for Stay of Enforcement
3. Statement of Facts
4. Legal Standard for Stay
5. Grounds Analysis (Four-Factor Test)
6. Bond/Security Provisions
7. Emergency Stay Procedures
8. Opposition Response Template
9. Proposed Order
10. Appeal of Stay Denial
11. Document Checklist
12. Practice Tips
13. Sources and References

1. STAY REQUEST COVER LETTER

[__/__/____]

[________________________________]
[Agency Name]
[________________________________]
[Street Address]
[________________________________]
[City, State, ZIP Code]

Re: Request for Stay of Enforcement
Case/Docket No.: [________________________________]
In the Matter of: [________________________________]
Agency Order Dated: [__/__/____]

Dear [________________________________]:

Enclosed please find the Petitioner's Motion for Stay of Enforcement of the [________________________________] [Order/Decision/Final Action] dated [__/__/____] in the above-referenced matter, together with supporting memorandum, affidavit(s), and proposed order.

Petitioner [________________________________] respectfully requests that the [Agency Name] stay enforcement of the above-referenced [Order/Decision] pending [☐ review by the Minnesota Court of Appeals / ☐ reconsideration / ☐ appeal]. This request is made pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14.65 and [________________________________] [applicable agency regulation].

Petitioner requests that this motion be considered [☐ on an expedited basis / ☐ on the regular calendar / ☐ on an emergency basis] due to [________________________________].

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]
Attorney for Petitioner
Atty. Reg. No.: [________________________________]
[________________________________]
[Firm Name]
[________________________________]
[Address]
[________________________________]
[Phone / Email]

2. FORMAL MOTION FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT

STATE OF MINNESOTA

[AGENCY NAME / COURT OF APPEALS]

In the Matter of:

[________________________________]
Petitioner/Relator,

v.

[________________________________]
[Agency Name], Respondent.

Case No.: [________________________________]
Agency Docket No.: [________________________________]

PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT PENDING JUDICIAL REVIEW

NOW COMES Petitioner [________________________________], by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this [Agency/Honorable Court] for an order staying enforcement of the [Order/Decision/Final Action] dated [__/__/____] pending [☐ reconsideration / ☐ judicial review by writ of certiorari under Minn. Stat. §§ 14.63-14.68]. In support of this Motion, Petitioner states as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. On [__/__/____], the [Agency Name] issued a [Final Order/Decision/Enforcement Action] in the above-captioned matter ordering [________________________________].

2. Petitioner [☐ has filed / ☐ intends to file within the statutory period] a [☐ petition for writ of certiorari to the Minnesota Court of Appeals under Minn. Stat. § 14.63 / ☐ petition for reconsideration] challenging the [Order/Decision] on [__/__/____].

3. Absent a stay, the [Order/Decision] will take effect on [__/__/____], causing immediate and irreparable harm to Petitioner as described herein.

4. This Motion is filed pursuant to:
   - ☐ Minn. Stat. § 14.65 (agency or court authority to stay enforcement)
   - ☐ Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108 (stays pending appeal)
   - ☐ [________________________________] [Agency-specific regulation authorizing stay]
   - ☐ Inherent equitable power of the court

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Background of the Proceeding

5. Petitioner is a [________________________________] [individual/entity] located at [________________________________], engaged in [________________________________].

6. On or about [__/__/____], the [Agency Name] initiated [________________________________] [enforcement action/investigation/proceedings] against Petitioner concerning [________________________________].

7. The following proceedings occurred:

B. The Agency Order

8. The [Order/Decision] requires Petitioner to:
   - ☐ [________________________________]
   - ☐ [________________________________]
   - ☐ [________________________________]
   - ☐ Pay a fine/penalty of $[________________________________]

9. The enforcement date is [__/__/____], which is [____] days from the date of this Motion.

C. Compliance Efforts and Current Status

10. Since the issuance of the [Order/Decision], Petitioner has:
    - ☐ [________________________________]
    - ☐ [________________________________]
    - ☐ [________________________________]

4. LEGAL STANDARD FOR STAY

A. Statutory Authority — Minn. Stat. § 14.65

11. Under Minnesota's Administrative Procedure Act, "the filing of the writ of certiorari shall not stay the enforcement of the agency decision." Minn. Stat. § 14.65.

12. The statute provides two avenues for obtaining a stay:

(a) Agency Stay: The agency itself "may" stay enforcement of its own decision. The decision to stay is within the agency's discretion.

(b) Court of Appeals Stay: The Court of Appeals "may order a stay upon such terms as it deems proper." The court has broad discretion in setting terms and conditions.

13. Filing a petition for writ of certiorari does not create an automatic stay in Minnesota. The petitioner must affirmatively seek a stay from either the agency or the Court of Appeals.

B. Automatic Stay of Subsequent Appeals

14. Under Minn. Stat. § 14.65, when review of a final decision is commenced in the Court of Appeals, "any other later appeal under sections 14.63 to 14.68 from the final decision involving the same subject matter shall be stayed until final decision of the first appeal."

C. Certiorari Review Process

15. Judicial review of contested case decisions under the Minnesota APA is by writ of certiorari to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Minn. Stat. § 14.63. Key procedural requirements:

(a) The petition must be filed within 30 days after the party receives the final decision and order. Minn. Stat. § 14.63.

(b) The petition must be served on all parties and the agency. Minn. Stat. § 14.64.

(c) Review is on the administrative record. Minn. Stat. § 14.68.

D. Four-Factor Test for Stay

16. Minnesota courts apply the traditional four-factor test for evaluating stay requests, consistent with Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 137 N.W.2d 314 (Minn. 1965) and subsequent cases:

(1) Likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) Whether the petitioner will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay;
(3) Whether the balance of hardships favors the petitioner; and
(4) Whether a stay serves the public interest.

E. Agency-Specific Provisions

17. The following agency-specific regulation(s) may govern stay requests in this matter:
    - ☐ [________________________________] [Citation to specific agency regulation]
    - ☐ Minn. R. 1400.8600 (Office of Administrative Hearings rules)
    - ☐ [________________________________]

5. GROUNDS ANALYSIS (FOUR-FACTOR TEST)

Factor 1: Likelihood of Success on the Merits

18. Petitioner has a strong likelihood of success on the merits because:

Legal Errors in the Agency Decision:

• ☐ The agency violated constitutional rights because [________________________________]
• ☐ The agency exceeded its statutory authority under [________________________________]
• ☐ The decision was made upon unlawful procedure, specifically [________________________________]
• ☐ The decision is affected by an error of law because [________________________________]
• ☐ The decision is unsupported by substantial evidence because [________________________________]
• ☐ The decision is arbitrary or capricious because [________________________________]

Specific Grounds:

(a) [________________________________]
[Detailed argument on first ground for relief]

(b) [________________________________]
[Detailed argument on second ground for relief]

(c) [________________________________]
[Detailed argument on third ground for relief]

19. Under Minn. Stat. § 14.69, the Court of Appeals may reverse or modify the agency decision if the petitioner's substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the administrative finding, inference, conclusion, or decision is:
    - ☐ In violation of constitutional provisions
    - ☐ In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency
    - ☐ Made upon unlawful procedure
    - ☐ Affected by other error of law
    - ☐ Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record
    - ☐ Arbitrary or capricious

Factor 2: Irreparable Harm

20. Absent a stay, Petitioner will suffer irreparable harm that cannot be remedied through monetary damages or other adequate legal remedy:

• ☐ License Revocation/Suspension: Loss of [________________________________] license effective [__/__/____], preventing Petitioner from [________________________________]
• ☐ Business Closure: Forced cessation of operations at [________________________________], resulting in [________________________________]
• ☐ Financial Devastation: Immediate obligation to pay $[________________________________], which will [________________________________]
• ☐ Reputational Harm: Public disclosure of enforcement action causing irreversible damage to [________________________________]
• ☐ Loss of Employment: Inability to continue employment as [________________________________]
• ☐ Loss of Unique Property/Rights: [________________________________]
• ☐ Other: [________________________________]

21. These harms are irreparable because: [________________________________]

22. The imminence of the harm is demonstrated by: [________________________________]

Factor 3: Balance of Hardships

23. The balance of hardships tips decidedly in Petitioner's favor:

Harm to Petitioner Without Stay:

• ☐ [________________________________]
• ☐ [________________________________]
• ☐ [________________________________]

Harm to Agency/Respondent/Public With Stay:

• ☐ [________________________________]
• ☐ [________________________________]

24. The harm to Petitioner far outweighs any potential harm to the Agency or other parties because: [________________________________]

25. Conditions that would mitigate potential harm during the stay include:
    - ☐ [________________________________]
    - ☐ [________________________________]

Factor 4: Public Interest

26. A stay of enforcement serves the public interest because:

• ☐ The public is served by maintaining the status quo pending full judicial review
• ☐ Allowing premature enforcement would undermine confidence in the administrative process
• ☐ The Petitioner provides services to the public, including [________________________________]
• ☐ Enforcement would result in harm to third parties, including [________________________________]
• ☐ Public interest favors careful adjudication on the merits before enforcement of penalties
• ☐ [________________________________]

27. The public interest is not harmed by a stay because: [________________________________]

6. BOND/SECURITY PROVISIONS

A. Minnesota Security Requirements

28. Under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108, the court has discretion regarding security for stays pending appeal:

(a) The form of security may be a supersedeas bond, letter of credit, deposit of cash or property, or other form approved by the court.

(b) The amount of security, if any, is set at such amount as the court determines will preserve the value of the judgment or order to the respondent during the pendency of the appeal.

(c) The request for stay on a supersedeas bond should first be made to the agency, but the agency's decision is reviewable.

B. Bond Offer

29. Petitioner [☐ is prepared to / ☐ requests waiver of requirement to] post bond or security.

Proposed Bond/Security:

• ☐ Supersedeas bond in the amount of $[________________________________]
• ☐ Cash deposit in the amount of $[________________________________]
• ☐ Irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $[________________________________]
• ☐ Other security: [________________________________]

C. Basis for Bond Amount

30. The proposed bond/security amount is appropriate because: [________________________________]

D. Request for Waiver or Reduction

31. ☐ Petitioner requests that bond/security be waived or reduced because:
    - ☐ The agency action does not involve a monetary judgment or order
    - ☐ Petitioner is indigent and bond would effectively deny the right to judicial review
    - ☐ Petitioner is a governmental entity
    - ☐ The risk of harm to the opposing party during the stay is minimal
    - ☐ The nature of the enforcement action (e.g., license revocation) does not lend itself to monetary security
    - ☐ [________________________________]

E. Proposed Conditions

32. Petitioner proposes the following conditions during the stay period:
    - ☐ [________________________________]
    - ☐ [________________________________]
    - ☐ Petitioner will comply with all other agency requirements not subject to this stay
    - ☐ Petitioner will provide periodic status reports to the [Agency/Court]

7. EMERGENCY STAY PROCEDURES

A. Emergency Motion for Temporary Stay

When Standard Timelines Are Insufficient:

33. If enforcement is imminent and the regular motion schedule does not permit adequate review, Petitioner may seek an emergency temporary stay.

Requirements for Emergency Stay Under Minnesota Practice:

• ☐ Show that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before the motion can be heard
• ☐ Demonstrate good faith effort to notify opposing counsel/agency
• ☐ Explain why the emergency was not foreseeable or could not have been addressed sooner
• ☐ Present sufficient evidence (by affidavit) to support the request
• ☐ Comply with Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 127 (motions practice in Court of Appeals)

B. Procedure for Emergency Stay

34. Step 1 — Agency Request: Request a stay from the agency first (required under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108):
    - Contact: [________________________________]
    - Method: [☐ Written motion / ☐ Telephone followed by written confirmation]
    - Date of request: [__/__/____]
    - Agency response: [☐ Granted / ☐ Denied / ☐ No response within [____] hours]

35. Step 2 — Court of Appeals Emergency Motion: If agency relief is unavailable or denied:
    - File motion in the Minnesota Court of Appeals
    - Under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 127.02, file a motion for emergency/expedited consideration
    - Include certification that agency relief was sought and denied/unavailable
    - Contact the Clerk of the Appellate Courts for emergency scheduling
    - Serve the motion on all parties and the agency

36. Step 3 — Single-Judge Emergency Relief:
    - In extraordinary circumstances, a single judge of the Court of Appeals may grant temporary emergency relief
    - Any temporary relief granted is subject to reconsideration by the panel
    - The opposing party may seek immediate review of the emergency order

C. Emergency Affidavit

37. Petitioner's emergency affidavit must include:
    - ☐ Facts establishing the nature and imminence of irreparable harm
    - ☐ Efforts made to obtain relief from the agency
    - ☐ Reasons why regular motion procedures are insufficient
    - ☐ Good faith certification regarding notice to opposing parties
    - ☐ Specific factual basis, supported by exhibits

8. OPPOSITION RESPONSE TEMPLATE

AGENCY'S/RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR STAY

NOW COMES the [Agency Name/Respondent], and opposes Petitioner's Motion for Stay of Enforcement as follows:

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

38. [________________________________]

II. ARGUMENT

A. Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated a Likelihood of Success on the Merits

39. [________________________________]

B. Petitioner Will Not Suffer Irreparable Harm

40. [________________________________]

C. The Balance of Hardships Favors the Agency

41. [________________________________]

D. The Public Interest Requires Enforcement

42. [________________________________]

III. BOND/SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

43. If the Court is inclined to grant a stay, the Agency requests:
    - ☐ Supersedeas bond or other security in the amount of $[________________________________]
    - ☐ Security sufficient to preserve the value of the order to the Agency during appeal
    - ☐ [________________________________]

IV. ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

44. In the event the Court grants a stay, the Agency requests the following conditions:
    - ☐ [________________________________]
    - ☐ Time limitation of [________________________________]
    - ☐ [________________________________]

V. CONCLUSION

45. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's Motion for Stay should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]
Counsel for [Agency/Respondent]
Atty. Reg. No.: [________________________________]
Date: [__/__/____]

9. PROPOSED ORDER

STATE OF MINNESOTA

COURT OF APPEALS

In the Matter of:

[________________________________], Relator/Petitioner

v.

[________________________________], Respondent

Court of Appeals Case No.: [________________________________]

ORDER ON PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT

Upon consideration of Petitioner's Motion for Stay of Enforcement filed pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14.65, the supporting memorandum, affidavit(s), and [☐ the Agency's opposition / ☐ without opposition], this Court finds:

☐ Petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.
☐ Petitioner will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay.
☐ The balance of hardships favors Petitioner.
☐ A stay serves the public interest.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

☐ STAY GRANTED. Enforcement of the [Order/Decision] dated [__/__/____] is stayed pending [☐ the conclusion of certiorari proceedings / ☐ further order of this Court], upon such terms as this Court deems proper:

(a) [________________________________]
(b) [________________________________]
(c) Petitioner shall post security in the form of [________________________________] in the amount of $[________________________________] within [____] days of this Order.
(d) This stay shall remain in effect until [__/__/____] or until further order of this Court, whichever occurs first.
(e) [________________________________]

☐ STAY DENIED. Petitioner's Motion for Stay is denied for the following reason(s):
[________________________________]

☐ STAY GRANTED IN PART. [________________________________]

Date: [__/__/____]

___________________________________
Judge, Minnesota Court of Appeals

10. APPEAL OF STAY DENIAL

A. Agency Denial — Seeking Court Relief

46. If the agency denies the stay request, Petitioner may seek a stay from the Minnesota Court of Appeals under Minn. Stat. § 14.65. The motion must include:

• ☐ Copy of the petition for writ of certiorari (if filed)
• ☐ Copy of the stay request submitted to the agency
• ☐ Copy of the agency's denial (or evidence of failure to act)
• ☐ Renewed argument on the four-factor test
• ☐ Supporting affidavits
• ☐ Proposed security (if applicable)

B. Court of Appeals Denial — Supreme Court Relief

47. If the Court of Appeals denies the stay, Petitioner may seek relief by:

• ☐ Filing a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals
• ☐ Petitioning the Minnesota Supreme Court for further review under Minn. Stat. § 480A.06
• ☐ Filing a motion for stay with the Minnesota Supreme Court
• ☐ Seeking extraordinary relief by writ of mandamus or prohibition

C. Timing Considerations

48. Key deadlines for Minnesota administrative appeals:

11. DOCUMENT CHECKLIST

Required Documents for Stay Request

For Agency-Level Stay:

• ☐ Motion for Stay of Enforcement
• ☐ Memorandum in support of stay
• ☐ Affidavit(s) in support
• ☐ Copy of the agency Order/Decision at issue
• ☐ Proposed Order
• ☐ Certificate of service on all parties

For Court-Level Stay (Court of Appeals):

• ☐ Motion for Stay of Enforcement (citing Minn. Stat. § 14.65)
• ☐ Memorandum of law in support
• ☐ Affidavit(s) in support
• ☐ Copy of petition for writ of certiorari
• ☐ Copy of agency stay request and denial (if applicable)
• ☐ Copy of the agency Order/Decision at issue
• ☐ Proposed Order granting stay
• ☐ Bond/security or proposed security (if applicable)
• ☐ Certificate of service on all parties and the agency
• ☐ Compliance with Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 127 (motion format)
• ☐ Filing fee

For Emergency Stay:

• ☐ All documents listed above, plus:
• ☐ Emergency affidavit establishing imminence of harm
• ☐ Certification of efforts to provide notice to opposing parties
• ☐ Certification of efforts to obtain relief from the agency
• ☐ Request for emergency/expedited consideration under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 127.02
• ☐ Proposed shortened briefing schedule

12. PRACTICE TIPS

Minnesota-Specific Considerations

Certiorari Review — Court of Appeals:

• Minnesota is distinctive in that judicial review of contested case decisions goes directly to the Court of Appeals (not to district court) by writ of certiorari
• This means stay requests go directly to the Court of Appeals rather than a trial court
• The Clerk of the Appellate Courts processes filings — follow Court of Appeals formatting rules
• Under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 115, the agency must transmit the record within a set timeframe

Agency Stay as First Step:

• Under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108, a request for stay on supersedeas bond must first be made to the agency
• Always seek an agency stay first — courts may deny motions where the petitioner bypassed the agency
• Even if the agency stay seems unlikely, filing the request creates a record for the Court of Appeals
• Document the agency's reasons for denial carefully

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH):

• The Minnesota OAH conducts hearings for many agencies under Minn. Stat. § 14.50
• After the OAH Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a report, the agency head makes the final decision
• Stay requests should be directed to the final decision maker (agency head), not the OAH ALJ
• The 30-day certiorari deadline runs from receipt of the agency's final decision, not the ALJ report

Bond/Security Flexibility:

• Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108 provides flexibility in the form of security
• Acceptable forms include: supersedeas bond, letter of credit, cash or property deposit, or other court-approved form
• The court sets the amount to "preserve the value of the judgment or order to the respondent"
• For non-monetary orders (license revocation, permit denial), argue that no bond is necessary or that a nominal bond suffices

Automatic Stay of Later Appeals:

• Under Minn. Stat. § 14.65, if one party files an appeal, any subsequent appeals from the same decision involving the same subject matter are automatically stayed until the first appeal is resolved
• This can be strategic — if you anticipate multiple appeals, timing matters

Scope of Review:

• Under Minn. Stat. § 14.69, the Court of Appeals reviews agency decisions on the administrative record
• The court gives deference to agency expertise but independently reviews questions of law
• Build the strongest possible record at the agency level

Common Pitfalls:

• Failing to file the certiorari petition within 30 days of receiving the final agency decision
• Not requesting an agency stay before seeking court relief
• Filing in district court instead of the Court of Appeals (wrong court)
• Inadequate affidavit support for irreparable harm
• Confusing the contested case certiorari process with other forms of agency review
• Missing service requirements on all parties and the agency

Health and Professional Licensing Cases:

• Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, Board of Nursing, and other licensing boards issue enforcement orders
• License suspension/revocation cases present strong irreparable harm arguments
• Consider proposing interim restrictions (supervised practice, limitation conditions) as alternatives to full stay or full enforcement

13. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Statutes

• Minn. Stat. § 14.65 — Stay of Decision; Stay of Other Appeals
• Minn. Stat. §§ 14.63-14.68 — Judicial Review of Contested Case Decisions
• Minn. Stat. § 14.69 — Scope of Court Review
• Minn. Stat. § 14.001 et seq. — Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act
• Minn. Stat. § 480A.06 — Petition for Supreme Court Review

Court Rules

• Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 107 — Writs of Certiorari to Review Decisions of Administrative Agencies
• Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108 — Stays Pending Appeal; Security
• Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 115 — Transmittal of Administrative Record
• Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 127 — Motions in the Court of Appeals

Key Cases

• Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 137 N.W.2d 314 (Minn. 1965) — Standard for preliminary injunctive relief
• In re Minn. Power & Light Co., 435 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. App. 1989) — Review of agency ratemaking decisions
• Dietz v. Dodge County, 487 N.W.2d 237 (Minn. 1992) — Scope of judicial review of administrative decisions

Practice Resources

• Minnesota Administrative Procedure (Mitchell Hamline School of Law)
• Minnesota CLE, Administrative Law Practice
• Minnesota State Bar Association, Administrative Law Section
• Minnesota State Law Library — Agency & Administrative Appeals Guide

This template is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Minnesota administrative law procedures vary by agency and subject matter. Certiorari review goes directly to the Court of Appeals. Consult a qualified Minnesota attorney before filing any stay request. Last updated: 2026-03-08.