Judge Denies Nightingale College’s Request for Preliminary Injunction

A Sacramento County Superior Court judge has denied Nightingale College’s request for a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit against the California Board of Registered Nursing.

After hearing arguments Oct. 23, Judge Stephen Acquisto ruled that Nightingale appeared unlikely to succeed on any of its claims. He also found that the interim harm to the public from granting the injunction “would be substantially greater than the interim harm to the interests represented by Nightingale” from denying it.

Want to see more Nurse.org articles in your Google results? Add us as a preferred source.

At the center of the lawsuit is whether Nightingale’s out-of-state nursing graduates must meet the same minimum clinical training requirements as graduates of California-approved nursing programs. California law requires approved in-state programs to provide at least 500 hours of direct patient care clinical training, including at least 30 supervised hours in each nursing area specified by the board.

Nightingale has argued that the 500-hour requirement governs the approval of California nursing programs, not the licensure of individual graduates, and that the BRN adopted a new interpretation of California’s licensure requirements without going through formal rulemaking.

The judge disagreed at this stage of the case. California law allows graduates of out-of-state programs to be licensed if their coursework is “equivalent to the minimum requirements” for an approved California program. Acquisto wrote that the board’s reading, that out-of-state coursework must include the same minimum hours, “seems to be the only reasonable one.”

In a declaration cited in the ruling, BRN Executive Officer Loretta Melby said Nightingale graduates “only had about 300 direct patient care clinical hours and California law requires 500.”

Not every point went the board’s way. The judge disagreed with the board’s argument that the rule against unwritten regulations does not apply to case-by-case licensing decisions, writing that an interpretation applied consistently to all applicants with out-of-state education “would likely constitute a regulation.” But he found the board’s reading exempt from formal rulemaking because it is the only legally tenable interpretation of the law. He added that even if Nightingale proved the board skipped required rulemaking, he would still find that the board correctly interpreted the law.

Concurrency and Open-Meeting Claims

The judge rejected Nightingale’s argument that California’s concurrency requirement is too vague to enforce. The regulation requires nursing theory and clinical practice to be concurrent in geriatrics, medical-surgical, mental health/psychiatric nursing, obstetrics and pediatrics.

Acquisto wrote that it “can be reasonably inferred” that concurrent means theory and clinical practice take place in the same academic term.

The court also found that even if the board’s July 29 and Aug. 11 meetings violated California’s open-meeting law, Nightingale could not show it was harmed, because the board addressed the issues in response to public comment from Nightingale students and graduates.

The denial is not a final decision on the lawsuit. The underlying case will continue.

CEO Mikhail Shneyder said in a statement the college disagrees with the ruling and will continue its legal challenge.

“We are disappointed and disagree with the court’s decision on the preliminary injunction. This ruling addresses only our request for preliminary relief, and we are continuing to pursue the legal action against the BRN’s unlawful conduct and advocating for California graduates. In the meantime, we aren’t asking graduates to simply wait. Nightingale College has begun enrolling affected graduates in additional courses at no cost. These courses are designed to address ‘deficiencies’ identified by the California BRN while the case moves forward. California needs nurses, and we’ll keep working to help graduates move forward and serve their communities.”

Nurse.org contacted the California Board of Registered Nursing for comment on the ruling but did not receive a response by publication time. The board has previously declined to comment, citing the litigation.

>>Listen to The Latest Nurse News Podcast

For now, the board’s deficiency findings still apply to affected graduates while the lawsuit continues, according to Nightingale.

The college says it has begun a pilot of additional courses for affected graduates, which may include up to 140 extra direct patient care hours at no cost. Enrollment in the first cohort is limited, and the college says it will add graduates as space opens.

Under the board’s standard licensing process, applicants found deficient in required nursing coursework have three years to complete it without paying an additional fee or resubmitting documents, according to a licensing update presented at the board’s Sept. 24-25 meeting.

Nightingale College, a Utah-based nursing school, sued the BRN after the board began placing holds on applications from some of its graduates seeking California licensure.

The college has argued that its graduates previously obtained California licenses under the same curriculum and that the board changed its interpretation of the requirements. Nightingale says nearly 2,000 of its graduates have been approved for California licensure. The case has divided nurses online.

The dispute does not center on whether Nightingale is accredited. The college is institutionally accredited by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, and its BSN program is accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education. The dispute is whether its out-of-state nursing education meets California’s requirements for licensure.

The case remains pending. The next hearing is scheduled for Feb. 19, 2027, when the court will consider the board’s request to dismiss the case, according to an update Nightingale posted for its California graduates.

🤔 Should graduates of out-of-state nursing programs have to meet the same clinical-hour minimums as California graduates? Share your thoughts in the comments below.