Nurses Association v. Brooklyn Hospital Center — TRO Denied, Jurisdiction Questioned

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 14, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

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

District Court, E.D. New York

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:26-cv-00745

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------x

THE NEW YORK STATE NURSES
ASSOCIATION,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Plaintiff, 26-CV-745(EK)(PCG)

-against-

THE BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER,

Defendant.

-----------------------------------x
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
The New York State Nurses Association, a union
(“NYSNA”), brought this action against the Brooklyn Hospital
Center. It alleges that the hospital failed to make
contractually required contributions to a benefit fund for union
members. Compl. 1, ECF No. 1.1 This failure is also the
subject of a pending arbitration — likewise initiated by NYSNA —
pursuant to the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Id.
¶ 20. Notwithstanding the arbitration proceeding, NYSNA seeks
emergency relief from this Court, directing immediate payment of
the “overdue contributions” at issue. Id. at 10-11.
This is NYSNA’s second attempt at this relief. The
Court denied its request for an ex parte temporary restraining
order that did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

1 Page numbers in record citations to record documents other than briefs
refer to ECF pagination.
65. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff has now provided notice, ECF No. 12,
which defendant has received. ECF No. 14. NYSNA moves once
again for a TRO and preliminary injunction. ECF No. 10. For

the reasons below, the renewed motion for a TRO is denied; the
Court will await further briefing before deciding the request
for a preliminary injunction.
The primary reason for the denial is that the
plaintiff has not established a sufficient likelihood of this
Court’s jurisdiction to award the relief sought. The Court must
assure itself of its jurisdiction before entering any
preliminary injunctive relief. Truck Drivers Loc. Union No. 807
v. Bohack Corp., 541 F.2d 312, 318 (2d Cir. 1976). If a
plaintiff cannot show that “the Court likely has subject matter
jurisdiction,” its request for preliminary relief will be
denied. New York v. Nat’l Sci. Found., 793 F. Supp. 3d 562, 577
(S.D.N.Y. 2025).2

On the existing record, this Court’s jurisdiction
remains doubtful. The Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 101 -
15, “deprives federal courts of the jurisdiction to grant
injunctive relief in labor disputes, except in limited
circumstances.” Niagara Hooker Emps. Union v. Occidental Chem.
Corp., 935 F.2d 1370, 1375 (2d Cir. 1991) (citing 29 U.S.C. §

2 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order
accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal
quotation marks.
101). One limited exception traces to Boys Markets, Inc. v.
Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. 235 (1970). Here,
NYSNA seeks a “reverse Boys Markets” injunction, which “permits

unions to obtain injunctions against employers to preserve the
status quo pending arbitration of a labor dispute.”
Aeronautical Indus. Dist. Lodge 91 of Int’l Ass’n of Machinists
& Aerospace Workers v. United Techs. Corp., 230 F.3d 569, 581 (2d Cir. 2000); Pl.’s Mem. 9, ECF No. 10-1. Such relief is
permissible, however, only when “necessary to prevent
arbitration from being rendered a meaningless ritual.” Niagara
Hooker, 935 F.2d at 1377. At this juncture, plaintiff has not
met this requirement.
“[F]or an injunction to issue at the union’s behest,
the irremediable injury in question must be such as to threaten
the integrity of the arbitration process itself.” Id. at 1378 (emphasis added). The Second Circuit has given the example of
“a company’s plan to sell a division, [which,] if not enjoined,
would render the [arbitration] process meaningless by presenting
an arbitrator with a fait accompli.” Id. No such fait accompli is evident here, at least on the
instant record. If anything, it appears that the fait accompli
we seek to avoid would arise if this Court were to grant the
requested relief: in that case, hospital funds would be
disbursed before the arbitration concluded (or even, perhaps,
before it began in earnest). ECF No. 10, at 2. On the other
hand, expenses incurred by union members in the interim will not
threaten the arbitration’s integrity, even if they may result in

some financial strain. The complaint acknowledges that members
will be “reimburse[d] . . . for medical expenses incurred
while . . . uninsured,” albeit at some “unknown point,” if the
union prevails. Compl. ¶ 18.3
For the reasons set forth above, the request for a TRO
is denied. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause by February 18
why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Defendant shall respond by February 27, and
address both subject matter jurisdiction and the merits of the
requested relief. Plaintiff may reply on or before March 6.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United State

s District Judge

D ated: February 14, 2026
Brooklyn, New Yor k

3 The Court is not aware of any reverse Boys Markets injunctions entered
in this circuit post-Niagara Hooker. And even in one of the cases plaintiffs
cite for the proposition that the loss of health insurance is irreparable
harm, the district court declined to enter a reverse Boys Markets injunction.
Loc. 217 Hotel & Rest. Emps. Union v. MHM, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 93, 108-10 (D.
Conn. 1991), aff’d, 976 F.2d 805 (2d Cir. 1992).