The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent golf balls from the defendants' golf course from entering their property, causing damage and posing a safety risk.
The court dismissed the motion, primarily because the plaintiffs failed to provide a mandatory undertaking concerning damages as required by Rule 40.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favored the defendants, who had taken steps to mitigate the issue and whose business would be significantly impacted by the injunction.
