The New York State Nurses Association v. The Brooklyn Hospital Center

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------x
THE NEW YORK STATE NURSES
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
THE BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
26-CV-745(EK)(PCG)
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
The New York State Nurses Association, a union, sues
the Brooklyn Hospital Center. 	Plaintiff alleges that the
hospital has failed to make contractually required contributions
to a benefits fund for union members. 	Compl. 1, ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff has brought a grievance — currently pending
arbitration — challenging this alleged failure. 	Id. ¶ 20.
Plaintiff has also requested a temporary restraining
order (“TRO”), directing the hospital to “make its overdue
contributions” pending final resolution of the grievance. 	Id.
at 10-11. 	The TRO request is ex parte: plaintiff has provided
no written or oral notice to the defendant or its attorney. 	For
the reasons set forth below, this request is denied.
When a movant seeks an ex parte TRO, it must, among
other things, certify in writing “any efforts made to give
notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” 	Fed. R.
Case 1:26-cv-00745-EK-PCG Document 8 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B); FEI Hong Kong Co. v. GlobalFoundries, Inc.,
No. 20-CV-2342, 2020 WL 1444956, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2020)
(denying TRO as plaintiff had “not provided any reasons why
notice was unnecessary or impractical”); Gullas v. 37-31 73rd
St. Owners Corp., No. 12-CV-2301, 2012 WL 1655520, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. May 10, 2012) (denying TRO as plaintiffs had “neither
shown that Defendant was given notice of this motion nor made
any showing as to why notice should not be required”). 	This
failure alone renders ex parte relief inappropriate. 	E.g., Pro.
Merch. Advance Cap., LLC v. C Care Servs., LLC, No. 13-CV-6562,
2013 WL 12109397, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2013) (“Plaintiff’s
attorney has not submitted anything about efforts to give notice
or reasons why notice should not be required. 	That omission
alone is fatal to the application . . . .”).
Plaintiff has also not separately moved for this
preliminary relief; the request for a TRO appears only in the
complaint. 	It is thus not properly before this Court. Allens
Creek / Corbetts Glen Pres. Grp., Inc. v. Caldera, 88 F. Supp.
2d 77, 83 (W.D.N.Y. 2000), aff’d sub nom. Allens Creek /
Corbetts Glen Pres. Grp., Inc. v. West, 2 F. App’x 162 (2d Cir.
2001) (collecting cases and explaining that “[i]f a party seeks
immediate relief, Rule 65 . . . requires the filing of a
motion”).
Case 1:26-cv-00745-EK-PCG Document 8 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
For the reasons set forth above, the request for a TRO
is denied. 	If plaintiff wishes to pursue a preliminary
injunction, it should file a motion in compliance with Rule 65
and serve that motion on the defendant.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated: 	February 11, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:26-cv-00745-EK-PCG Document 8 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>