Nazzal v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs

W.D. Washington

Nazzal v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs

DecidedAugust 12, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-05656

StatusUnknown

This text of Nazzal v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs (Nazzal v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nazzal v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 TONY ELIAS NAZZAL CASE NO. 25-CV-5656-BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 11 Defendant. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se plaintiff Tony Elias Nazzal’s 14 “Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction,” Dkt. 8. Nazzal asks this Court to order 15 the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide him with “immediate, emergency financial 16 relief and expedited payment.” Id. at 2, 3. 17 Nazzal previously filed a complaint alleging in part the Department has failed to 18 disclose certain disability and benefits records. Dkt. 4. 19 The purpose of a TRO is “preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable 20 harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing [on the preliminary injunction 21 application], and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & 22 1 Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423 (1974); see also Reno Air Racing Ass’n v. McCord, 2 452 F.3d 1126, 1130–31 (9th Cir. 2006). For a court to grant a preliminary injunction, the 3 plaintiff “must establish that she is likely to succeed on the merits, that she is likely to

4 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities 5 tips in her favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. 6 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). When considering whether to grant this 7 “extraordinary remedy, . . . courts must balance the competing claims of injury and 8 consider the effect of granting or withholding the requested relief, paying particular

9 regard to the public consequences.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24. 10 While Nazzal appears to make an argument for a TRO, he fails to sufficiently 11 provide a factual basis or legal argument that he is likely to prevail on the merits. He has 12 also failed to show irreparable harm. The Court will regard Nazzal’s motion as a motion 13 for a preliminary injunction, re-noted for September 8, 2025.

14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated this 12th day of August, 2025. A 16 17 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 18 United S tates District Judge 19 20 21 22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 TONY ELIAS NAZZAL CASE NO. 25-CV-5656-BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 11 Defendant. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se plaintiff Tony Elias Nazzal’s 14 “Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction,” Dkt. 8. Nazzal asks this Court to order 15 the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide him with “immediate, emergency financial 16 relief and expedited payment.” Id. at 2, 3. 17 Nazzal previously filed a complaint alleging in part the Department has failed to 18 disclose certain disability and benefits records. Dkt. 4. 19 The purpose of a TRO is “preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable 20 harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing [on the preliminary injunction 21 application], and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & 22 1 Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423 (1974); see also Reno Air Racing Ass’n v. McCord, 2 452 F.3d 1126, 1130–31 (9th Cir. 2006). For a court to grant a preliminary injunction, the 3 plaintiff “must establish that she is likely to succeed on the merits, that she is likely to

4 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities 5 tips in her favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. 6 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). When considering whether to grant this 7 “extraordinary remedy, . . . courts must balance the competing claims of injury and 8 consider the effect of granting or withholding the requested relief, paying particular

9 regard to the public consequences.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24. 10 While Nazzal appears to make an argument for a TRO, he fails to sufficiently 11 provide a factual basis or legal argument that he is likely to prevail on the merits. He has 12 also failed to show irreparable harm. The Court will regard Nazzal’s motion as a motion 13 for a preliminary injunction, re-noted for September 8, 2025.

14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated this 12th day of August, 2025. A 16 17 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 18 United S tates District Judge 19 20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nazzal v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nazzal-v-united-states-department-of-veterans-affairs-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack