Kerbow et al v. Washington Parish School Board et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KERBOW, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 26-2156
WASHINGTON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
ET AL.
SECTION: N
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Renewed Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order Preserving the Status Quo Pending Ruling on Preliminary
Injunction.1 Also pending in this case is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction,2
for which the Court held a hearing on October 8, 2026. Plaintiffs request this TRO to
maintain the status quo pending a ruling on the preliminary injunction, specifically,
to halt the Special Education Advisory Counsil meeting on October 14, 2026,3 and the
Washington Parish School Board meeting on October 15, 2026.4
To obtain a TRO, a plaintiff must show “(1) a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the TRO is not issued,
(3) that the threatened injury if the TRO is denied outweighs any harm that will
result if the TRO is granted, and (4) that the grant of a TRO will not disserve the
1 Rec. Doc. 18.
2 Rec. Doc. 8.
3 The meeting is to address “MHS Refiguration [sic] Support”
4 “The agenda includes approval of ‘the minutes for the September 24, 2026 Special Board Meeting,’
the meeting at which the reconfiguration was adopted (item 5), action on the Direct Student Services
Budget and on Title I, Title II, and REAP budget revisions for the 2026–2027 fiscal year (items 10–
13), a revised public records policy, Policy File 308.00 (item 17), the Superintendent’s Report (item 19),
and a motion to enter executive session under La. R.S. 42:17 ‘concerning pending litigation in the
matter of Giles, et al. v. Washington Parish School Board, Civ. Action No. 2:26-cv-02156,’ which is this
case (item 20).” Rec. Doc. 18-2 at 5.
Case 2:26-cv-02156-ASJ-KWR Document 20 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
public interest.”5 Such preliminary relief is “an extraordinary remedy” that a court
should not grant unless the applicant “has clearly carried the burden of persuasion”
on all four requirements.6 Granting such relief “‘is to be treated as the exception
rather than the rule.’”7
To show immediate and irreparable harm, a plaintiff must demonstrate it is
likely it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.8 However,
a “[s]peculative injury is not sufficient; there must be more than an unfounded fear
on the part of the applicant.”9 Plaintiffs argue that the Court should order Defendants
to stop implementing the reconfiguration while the Court considers whether to enjoin
it. Specifically, Plaintiffs state there is irreparable harm because “implementation
will extinguish parents’ right to participate before decisions are made and will subject
children with disabilities to transitions that may later be reversed.”10
The renewed motion fails to provide adequate reasoning as to why both
meetings in question will produce irreparable harm. Plaintiffs have still not shown
how meetings regarding implementation of the voted-on decision to reconfigure
Mount Hermon School create immediate, certain harm to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
acknowledge that the reconfiguration, if not enjoined, would not take place until the
5 Premium Parking Serv., LLC v. Olivier, No. 23-cv-3405, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143019, at *6 (E.D.
La. Aug. 16, 2023) (citing Speaks v. Kruse, 445 F.3d 396, 399-400 (5th Cir. 2006)).
6 Bluefield Water Ass’n Inc. v. City of Starkville, 577 F.3d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
7 House the Homeless v. Widnall, 94 F.3d 176, 180 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Miss. Power & Light Co. v.
United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985)).
8 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
9 United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 262 (5th Cir. 2001).
10 Rec. Doc. 18 ¶ 9.
Case 2:26-cv-02156-ASJ-KWR Document 20 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
2027-2028 school year.11 The specific injury that Plaintiffs are alleging these two
meetings will create is speculative and, in any event, not irreparable.12
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in showing (1)
a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of one or more of their claims; (2) a
threat of irreparable harm, as the actual reconfiguration is not scheduled to take
effect until the following school year; (3) the alleged injury would outweigh any harm
that would result in a grant; and (4) the grant of this TRO would not disserve the
public interest. The Court finds this issue is better suited for review in the pending
motion for preliminary injunction.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Renewed Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 13th day of October, 2026.
__________________________________
ANNA ST. JOHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11 Rec. Doc. 18 ¶ 9.
12 Emerson, 270 F.3d at 262 (“A presently existing actual threat must be shown.”).
Case 2:26-cv-02156-ASJ-KWR Document 20 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 3