Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Grissom Miller x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Civil Rights: Other | Kansas
Order on Motion for TRO
ORDER denying Doc. 4 , Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. In a dispute tracing its origins back several months, the Association filed this action seeking, inter alia, injunctive relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. At a status conference on August 12, both parties declined the opportunity to submit additional briefs and/or evidence. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that issues only on "a clear and unequivocal showing of entitlement." Nat'l Ass'n for Gun Rights v. Polis, 173 F.4th 1317, 1331 (10th Cir. 2026). It requires the party seeking a preliminary injunction to show a likelihood of success on the merits, a likely threat of irreparable harm, that the harm alleged by the movant outweighs any harm to the non-movant, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Based on a review of the materials submitted to date, the Association has not made the required strong showing that it is likely to succeed on either count because, among other things, the Association has not clearly established the injury-in-fact prong of standing concerning its Count I claim (nothing in the record indicates its speech was altered or deterred by an alleged prior restraint from the April 7 letter on which it bases its claim) and, as to Count II, it neither identified law requiring the Government to create a place on a governing body's meeting agenda or that it lacks access to the public-comment channels that remain open to it. Even if it had made the requisite substantive showing, the Association's delay in seeking emergency (and allegedly time-sensitive) relief undercuts its attempt to show irreparable harm. A memorandum and order further explaining the reasoning in full will issue in due course. See A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 92-94 (2026) (per curiam) (recognizing the possibility that district court inaction can constitute constructive denial of a motion "in the face of extreme urgency and a high risk of 'serious, perhaps irreparable,' consequences may have the effect of refusing an injunction"). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Toby Crouse on 8/21/26. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ta)
Pro Hac Vice
MOTION for attorney Nadia I. Bayado to appear pro hac vice ( Pro hac vice fee $50, Internet Payment Receipt Number AKSDC-7075591.) by Plaintiff Local 64 KCK Professional Firefighters Association (referred to Magistrate Judge Jennifer B. Wieland) (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 ECF Registration Form)(Miller, Jacob)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.