A U.S. District Court judge yesterday denied Pereira-Boyle cabal’s request for a temporary restraining order, citing a lack of “any material that could be regarded as evidence.” This of course, comes after Education Bridgeport! reported that the District PAC never actually consented to attorney Norman Pattis filing a lawsuit on their behalf.
A restraining order is quite an extreme measure, if you consider that in order to prove a temporary restraining order is necessary, you have to show “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage.”
Exactly what “loss or damage” would have come to the DPAC parents if Maria Pereira and Tammy Boyle weren’t reinstated?
Drawing a blank? Yeah, so did their lawyer.
Daniel Erwin, a lawyer from the Norman Pattis’ law firm who represented the group Thursday morning, didn’t give much of an answer, arguing they needed to return to their admittedly “small” constituency.
For that matter, why file such a motion without a shred of evidence? Is this a glimpse into what’s to come?
Not surprisingly, U.S. District Court Judge Charles S. Haight, after a little more than an hour of argument, dismissed the motion for a restraining order against the Bridgeport Board of Education, ruling that it would be “an abuse of discretion” to grant such a motion.
Unfortunately, this is probably not the end of it. Judge Haight did not set a date for an evidentiary hearing, but suggested to Erwin that he might file a motion for a preliminary injunction.
An entertaining side note: Judge Haight also pointed out that they weren’t actually requesting a “temporary injunction,” mainly because those don’t exist. After being prompted by Judge Haight, the lawyer corrected himself, and explained that they were looking for a temporary restraining order.
For more on this, here are other Education Bridgeport! stories on this issue: