California Graduate Information Center

Nightingale College has filed suit against the California Board of Registered Nursing (BRN) and Loretta Melby, its Executive Officer.

We filed Case 26CV020260 in Sacramento County Superior Court to prevent the BRN from acting contrary to the law in holding our graduates’ testing applications. We also filed a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the BRN from using unlawful criteria to hold graduates’ applications for authorization to test (ATT). More legal actions are forthcoming.

We have been working on a supplemental course. However, in the absence of any concrete, official deficiency determination from the BRN, we do not know what exactly we are solving for, which means we can’t guarantee the course will meet requirements.

As soon as there’s any clarity and if needed (meaning the case isn’t resolved soon by preliminary injunction or legal discussion), we will enroll everyone into the course free of charge. Over the long term, if any deficiencies are actually determined, the disputed hours will be incorporated into the curriculum.

We understand that your financial situation is a major cause of stress. To offer some relief, graduates whose licensure is affected by the BRN situation can apply for temporary deferment/forbearance on their federal loans. For more information, please reach out to defaultprevention@nightingale.edu. More information is coming soon.

The lawsuit was filed Monday, Aug. 24. A hearing for a temporary restraining order (TRO) was held Friday, Aug. 28, and the TRO request was denied.

Next, we intend to (1) file a preliminary injunction, planned for the week of Aug. 31. Meanwhile, (2) our counsel will be meeting with a deputy attorney general assigned to the case to attempt to resolve the situation outside of court.

Yes, the TRO request was denied on a procedural basis. Importantly, the judge did not decide who was right in the underlying case. The Court expressly stated that it was not deciding whether Nightingale can ultimately establish entitlement to provisional relief while the litigation is pending. It likewise did not address the substantive merits of our claims against the BRN.

The TRO decision also does not require the BRN to change how it is currently handling the affected licensure applications. It only addressed Nightingale’s request for the court to take immediate action.

A TRO is an emergency order that requires immediate, short-term action. A preliminary injunction gives Nightingale a way to ask the court to address the immediate issue affecting graduates before the entire lawsuit is decided.

We don’t have a timeline for that yet. We’ll update you when we do. The goal is to ask the court to respond to this issue before the lawsuit is decided.

Our goal is, and has always been, the licensure of our graduates. The BRN’s actions are unfair, unlawful, and harmful. As we have done in the past, we stand with our learners when they face burdensome or discriminatory barriers to nursing education and licensure. We believe the BRN is violating state law, but our current legal action is not about proving a point–it’s about access, fairness, and accountability.

Legal action is not our preferred choice. Where possible, if and when regulations change, we work with state boards of nursing in good faith to arrive at mutually agreeable outcomes. We took this approach with the BRN to no avail. After months of requests for meetings, the BRN eventually met with our legal counsel. In one of these meetings, the BRN stated that there is no room for compromise or flexibility on this issue. Despite taking this hard line, the BRN has not provided official notice of deficiencies, so it’s unclear what line they actually are taking.

This leaves graduates in limbo. Graduates are not allowed to test for licensure. but the BRN has not fully disclosed deficiencies in graduates’ applications, so graduates cannot address any deficiencies. The BRN has effectively left graduates with no options for pursuing licensure in California.

This situation is unacceptable. Our graduates have qualified and earned the right to test. Many have lost job offers and opportunities while they remain unlicensed. We will take the steps needed to ensure our learners and graduates are treated fairly. If the BRN’s actions block the path to licensure, we will do everything in our power to open that path again.

Three things to know:

• The BRN has violated the Administrative Procedures Act through its application of underground regulations, including the 500-hour and 30-hour direct care and the undefined concurrency (BPC § 2786(a)(2), and 16 CCR § 1426(d)), neither of which are licensing requirements for graduates of out-of-state schools nor for graduates of CA-approved programs, as the law expressly allows programs not to track individual students’ direct care hours. Although the BRN has the authority to create new regulations through a specific rulemaking process, it did not do so when it began applying rules for in-state approval of California programs to out-of-state candidates for licensure.
• The BRN has violated the Open Meeting Act by making public comments regarding its concerns about Nightingale’s curriculum without including these items on its meeting agendas.
• A writ of mandate (court order) is filed that will require the BRN to process all open ATT applications under the correct legal standard, not underground regulations.

The TRO took place Friday, Aug. 28. Although the TRO was not granted, we intend to file a preliminary injunction the week of Aug. 31, but we do not have a date for that hearing yet. We will update you when we have more information.

We expect the process for the entire lawsuit to take longer. However, other court proceedings may take place in the meantime, and we intend to pursue available legal options. At this point, we don’t have a timeline for the lawsuit, but we will keep you informed.

The July 21, 2027 Initial Case Management Conference date assigned to us on the court docket is not a firm date. The date is subject to evolve, based on legal actions. Court proceedings may begin ahead of this date. For example, we intend to file a preliminary injunction as early as next week.

If the preliminary injunction is granted, it will prevent the BRN from enforcing its 500-hour/30-hour direct-patient-care requirement under BPC § 2786(a)(2), and the undefined "concurrency" standard under 16 CCR § 1426(d)) against Nightingale graduates who have applied for their ATT.

We will update the California Graduate Information Center regularly with the latest information. You can find resources and helpful links there. If you have questions that aren’t answered on that page, contact rmahlberg@nightingale.edu for more information.