Brignac v. Clark County School District

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 5, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00215
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 JARON BRIGNAC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00215- EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; MANION MIDDLE SCHOOL; TODD 8 PETERSON; TINA MILLER; CONNIE MCGRANDY; ZACH STARK, 9 Defendants. 10

11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order under 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, and request for an Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary 13 Injunction Should Not Be Issued.1 ECF No. 20. 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs TROs and requires motions seeking such relief 15 to include “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [that] clearly show that immediate 16 and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard 17 in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. Further, the standard governing TROs is the same standard 18 applied to requests for preliminary injunctions. Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp. v. Reliant Energy 19 Servs., Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1126 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 20 TROs “should be restricted to serving [their] underlying purpose of preserving the status quo 21 and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” 22 Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 23 439 (1974). A preliminary injunction may be issued if a plaintiff establishes: (1) likelihood of 24 success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the 25 balance of equities tips in plaintiff’s favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. 26 27 1 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “Injunctive relief [is] an extraordinary remedy 2 that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22. 3 In his TRO Motion, Plaintiff argues his daughter was expelled from her middle school 4 causing him irreparable injury because he was “pulled away from his daily work activities to 5 cooperate with the behavioral school” to which his daughter was referred, he has missed hours of 6 work in an effort to figure out in which school his daughter should be enrolled, he has lost sleep, and 7 he is suffering from anxiety because his daughter is placed in a behavioral school. ECF No. 20 at 8 10. The harm Plaintiff alleges is insufficient to establish the immediate and irreparable harm 9 required to warrant the granting of a TRO. 10 Plaintiff’s generalized claims of emotional distress, loss of sleep, and anxiety are not 11 sufficient to establish irreparable harm. Mayes v. Smart & Final Stores, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv- 12 1136-JAD-VCF, 2017 WL 2450247, at ** 1-2 (D. Nev. June 6, 2017) (plaintiff’s claim that she was 13 under the care of a doctor for emotional and psychological distress is insufficient to establish 14 irreparable harm in the absence of any evidence to support her allegations); Holcomb v. Cal. Board 15 of Psychology, Case No. 2:15-cv-02154-KSM-CRD, 2015 WL 7430625, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 16 2015) (finding no irreparable harm where plaintiff alleged that in the absence of a temporary 17 restraining order she would lose her job, be unable to find employment due to her advanced age, and 18 possibly become homeless as a result). 19 Plaintiff’s alleged lost off work time is also insufficient to constitute irreparable injury. 20 Arizona Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Goldie's 21 Bookstore v. Superior Ct. of the State of Cal., 739 F.2d 466, 471 (9th Cir. 1984) (“financial injury 22 … [does] not constitute irreparable harm if adequate compensatory relief will be available in the 23 course of litigation.”). In fact, the risk of termination from employment is not sufficient, in and of 24 itself, to constitute irreparable harm. Mayes, 2017 WL 2450247, at *3 (“risk of being terminated 25 also does not present a threat of imminent harm.”). “Purely economic harms are generally not 26 irreparable, as money lost may be recovered later, in the ordinary course of litigation.” Idaho v. 27 Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 794 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal citation omitted). A plaintiff 1 compensate” him for his injury. Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 2 1249 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal citation omitted). 3 In the absence of a demonstration that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm, Plaintiff fails to 4 establish a basis for granting immediate injunctive relief. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary 6 Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Be Issued 7 (ECF No. 20) is DENIED without prejudice. 8 Dated this 5th day of March, 2025. 9

10 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27