Laserfiche WebLink
the fact that the Defendant took with notice that a reclamation plan was in <br />place that affected the property. (Ex. X, Seller's Disclosure.) <br />5. The balance of the equities favored the Plaintiff as Plaintiff is in the <br />midst of a reclamation plan that may be affected if there is a change in <br />management of the property. This factor is also supported by the fact that the <br />Defendant took with notice that there was a lease and /or reclamation plan that <br />affected the property. (Ex. X, Seller's Disclosure.) <br />6. The status quo will be maintained by the entry of the injunction by <br />allowing the Plaintiff to continue with the reclamation plan that has been in <br />place for approximately fifteen years. Currently, it is the end of the season and <br />the status quo will be preserved by allowing the Plaintiff to continue with its <br />current manager and practices. Specifically, the reclamation plan provides <br />that the "same contractor who manages the reclaimed area will manage the <br />reference area" (Ex. J, page 30) and Mr. Wade testified at the temporary <br />restraining order hearing that Mr. Staats did provide management for both <br />areas. Conversely, Defendant did not offer evidence as to how it would <br />preserve the status quo pending a trial on the merits. <br />Finally, the Court considered the bond amount and the Defendant's right <br />to compensation from the value of the hay harvested on the property as well as <br />the winter grazing rights. The Court concluded that there was insufficient <br />evidence to make a final determination regarding the issue of compensation <br />that may be owed to the Defendant for the value of the hay and grazing rights <br />4 <br />