Saab v. Lebanese American University
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-00692
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Saab v. Lebanese American University: Judge Subramanian denied Saab’s ex parte temporary restraining order but scheduled a hearing on her preliminary-injunction request.
Dr. Yolande Saab’s request for emergency relief was denied in part as an ex parte TRO request; the court scheduled a hearing on her separate preliminary-injunction request and required service on the defendants before that hearing.
What happened
In Saab v. Lebanese American University, pro se plaintiff Dr. Yolande Saab asked the court for an emergency order stopping enforcement of her termination and preventing further retaliation by the defendants.
The court ruled that Saab had not shown the immediate and irreparable harm required for an emergency order without first hearing from the defendants. It said that lost employment and reputational harm can be addressed through money damages or reinstatement, and that her statements about possible future retaliation were too general.
Judge Arun Subramanian denied the request for an ex parte temporary restraining order and scheduled a remote hearing on Saab’s preliminary-injunction request. The court said Saab must serve the defendants and file proof of service for the hearing to proceed, unless she asks for more time.
The detailed version
- Saab v. Lebanese American University · No. 1:25-cv-00692
- Subramanian
- Jan. 31, 2025
Background
Pro se plaintiff Dr. Yolande Saab requested, among other relief, an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO). An ex parte order is issued without first hearing from the opposing parties. Saab sought an order that would halt enforcement of her termination and prevent further retaliatory actions by the defendants. She argued that the order was needed to preserve the status quo while her legal claims were resolved.
Ex Parte TRO Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), a court may issue an ex parte TRO when specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before the opposing party can be heard, or when the movant’s attorney certifies efforts to provide notice and explains why notice should not be required. The court noted that ex parte TROs should be limited to preserving the existing situation and preventing irreparable harm.
Court’s Reasoning
The court concluded that Saab had already been terminated, so the requested TRO would effectively seek her reinstatement rather than preserve the existing situation. It held that loss of employment alone does not constitute irreparable injury and that reputational harm connected to termination also did not meet that standard. The court noted that monetary damages and reinstatement could provide remedies for those harms. It also found that Saab’s statements that the defendants might take additional retaliatory action against her and her family were generalized and did not explain what actions were likely or why they were likely to occur.
Ruling and Next Steps
Judge Arun Subramanian denied Saab’s request for an ex parte TRO. The court expressed skepticism about the merits of her request for a preliminary injunction but did not rule on that request in this order. Instead, it scheduled a remote hearing for February 20, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The court stated that the hearing could not be held ex parte. Saab therefore had to serve the defendants and file proof of service by the Friday before the conference for the hearing to proceed, although she could ask for more time to complete service.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.