Ager v. Goodell
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-03630
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Leon Maurice Ager v. Roger Goodell, Judge Furman denied plaintiffs’ new request for a preliminary injunction and warned of possible sanctions.
The plaintiffs’ new motion for a preliminary injunction was denied; the order also cautions the plaintiffs about possible sanctions for additional motions without a material change in circumstances.
What happened
In Leon Maurice Ager, et al. v. Roger Goodell, et al., the plaintiffs filed a new request for a preliminary injunction on September 9, 2025. The court had previously denied an earlier injunction request and the plaintiffs’ request to reconsider that decision.
The court denied the new request. It said the plaintiffs had not shown that they would suffer harm that could not be repaired later, noting that they appeared to have waited years to seek relief and that money damages could address any harm.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also cautioned that additional requests for preliminary relief or reconsideration, without a major change in circumstances, could lead to sanctions. The clerk was directed to close the new motion and mail the order to the plaintiffs.
The detailed version
- Ager v. Goodell · No. 1:25-cv-03630
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 11, 2025
Background
The court had denied the plaintiffs’ earlier motion for a preliminary injunction on June 4, 2025. A preliminary injunction is a court order issued before a final decision that is intended to prevent ongoing or anticipated harm. The court then denied the plaintiffs’ motion asking it to reconsider that ruling on July 17, 2025.
On September 9, 2025, the plaintiffs filed another motion for a preliminary injunction.
Ruling
The court denied the plaintiffs’ new motion, substantially for the reasons stated in its earlier orders. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm, meaning harm that could not be adequately repaired later. The court cited the plaintiffs’ apparent delay of years before seeking relief and the possibility that monetary damages could remedy any harm.
The court cautioned that additional motions for preliminary relief or reconsideration, without a material change in circumstances, might result in sanctions. It directed the clerk to terminate the new motion, identified as ECF No. 21, and mail a copy of the order to the plaintiffs.
Effect of the Order
The order denies the September 9 motion for a preliminary injunction. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or decide their ultimate merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.