In the

Supreme Court of the State of Electronically

NevadaFiled
Sep 14 2023 10:19 AM
CLARK COUNTY EDUCATION Elizabeth A. Brown
ASSOCIATION; MARIE NEISESS, Clerk of Supreme Court
in her capacity as President of the
Clark County Education Case No.: 87290
Association; JAMES FRAZEE, in
his capacity as Vice President of the District Court Case No.:
Clark County Education A-23-874996-C
Association; JOHN VELLARDITA,
in his capacity as Executive
Director of the Clark County Action Necessary by
Education Association; and DOES
1-10, inclusive TODAY, THURSDAY,
SEPTEMBER 14, 2023
Appellants,

vs. If time constraints make

consideration by a panel
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL impracticable, Movants
DISTRICT, request the motion be
considered by a single
Respondent. justice, pursuant to
N.R.A.P. 8(a)(2)(D)

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY UNDER N.R.A.P. 27(e)

BRADLEY S. SCHRAGER, ESQ. (NSB 10217)

DANIEL BRAVO, ESQ. (NSB 13078)
BRAVO SCHRAGER LLP
6675 S. Tenaya Way, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
Tel.: (702) 622-5637
Attorneys for Appellants

Docket 87290 Document 2023-30077

 N.R.A.P. 26.1 DISCLOSURE

Pursuant to N.R.A.P. 26.1, the undersigned counsel of record

certifies that there are no persons or entities as described in Rule 26.1(a)

of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure that must be disclosed.

Dated this 14th day of September, 2023.

BRAVO SCHRAGER LLP

By: /s/ Bradley S. Schrager

Bradley S. Schrager, Esq. (SBN 10217)
Daniel Bravo, Esq. (SBN 13078)
6675 South Tenaya Way, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
Tele.: (702) 996-1724
Email: bradley@bravoschrager.com
Email: daniel@bravoschrager.com

Attorneys for Appellants

ii
 Appellants CLARK COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,

MARIE NEISESS, JAMES FRAZEE, and JOHN VELLARDITA

(collectively, “CCEA” or “Appellants”), by and through undersigned

counsel, hereby submit this Emergency Motion for Stay Under Rule 8

and Rule 27(e) of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure (“N.R.A.P.”).1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

18,000 Clark County public school teachers, and their Union, are

currently subject to an injunction order that is facially invalid for

vagueness, non-specificity, and overbreadth. CCEA asks this Court to

stay the order of the district court until an impending emergency,

expedited appeal can be resolved.

The entirety of the injunction order issued and entered on

September 13, 2023, reads:

The Court finds that a strike has occurred as defined in

1 Pursuant to N.R.A.P. 8, Appellants asked the district court, at the

conclusion of the emergency injunction hearing on September 13, 2023,
which was held on an order shortening time to one judicial day, to stay
the injunction pending appeal, or to inform Appellants whether it would
be futile to move for stay, in order to facilitate review by this Court. The
district court responded on the record that it would be futile to ask to stay
the order. The colloquy will be apparent upon production of the
transcript.
 NRS 288.074. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that CCSD’s
Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction is
GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

1. In accordance with NRS 288.705(2), Defendants and the

bargaining unit they represent are enjoined and
prohibited from continuing the strike and any
other actions which amount to a strike, as defined
in NRS 288.074; and

2. Defendants are ordered to communicate the terms of

this Order with all of the CCEA bargaining unit.

See Exhibit A to this motion (emphasis added).

The order states no findings, no reasons why it issued, does not

state its terms specifically, and does not describe in reasonable detail

the act or acts restrained or required, all in violation of

NRCP 65(d)(1).

Regardless of the underlying dispute, which itself will be before

this Court immediately and will include complex issues of first

impression in Nevada law, it cannot be true that an injunction that

includes no specific terms, and refers only to statutory provisions that

themselves require both judicial interpretation and application, as

well as fact-finding, in order to be employed at all, can form the basis

of a valid injunction order providing notice of what conduct is and is

2
not prohibited to Appellants, its members, and the thousands of Clark

County teachers.

This Court has always invalidated injunction orders that fail to

meet basic requirements of due process. “An injunction order is an

extraordinary writ, subject to contempt for failure to comply, and thus

must be set out in specific terms.” Maheu v. Hughes Tool Co., 88 Nev.

592, 598, 503 P.2d 4, 8 (1972). Here, not only are violators subject to

contempt for violation, but a host of draconian statutory penalties —

which the district court read out in open court, for what the court

called “the benefit of the community,” indicating a willingness to

swiftly punish those who run afoul of the injunction—that include:

$50,000 fine per day for CCEA; $1,000 fine per day for officers of the

Union, and potential imprisonment; Termination of employment of

any teachers found to have violated the order; Dismissal, suspension,

or demotion by the employer, cancelation of contracts of employment,

and withholding of wages. See NRS 288.710-715 (emphasis added).

Furthermore, Respondent Clark County School District (the “CCSD” or

“Respondent”) has pending before the Employee Management

Relations Board a petition to withdraw recognition of the

3
democratically-elected bargaining agent of Clark County teachers, on

the argument that it has disavowed its pledge not to strike, pursuant

to NRS 288.160.

These penalties heighten the need for immediate action by this

Court. The terms of the injunction are inadequate and violate

NRCP 65(d)’s content and scope requirement, as well as state and

federal constitutional due process guarantees regarding notice of

prohibited conduct. The terms of the injunction cannot be readily

understood, cannot be fairly enforced, and must be stayed. There may,

in fact, be an appropriate injunction against actors who have violated

or threaten to violate Nevada law, based on admissible evidence yet

to be offered and weighed, and properly tailored to the circumstances

found by a district court; this order is not that injunction.

II. SETTING

It is well-known that during the contentious negotiation of a new

collective bargaining agreement between the CCSD and CCEA, there

have been a raft of teacher call-outs for illness in Clark County

schools, and a small number of school closures as a result. This is not

disputable. What is disputed is whether the named defendants below,

4
or the Union generally, and now all 18,000 public school teachers, can

be held liable and responsible for conduct for which no evidence of

responsibility was presented or exists. Both CCSD and the district

court made clear below, there is no direct evidence supporting any

allegation of prohibited conduct by Appellants.

This appeal of the injunction order will test a number of

questions, some of which are of first impression: Did the district court

abuse its discretion in issuing the injunction decision without proper

evidence? Can these Appellants, the Union, and the entire bargaining

unit, be held liable under NRS Chapter 288 without evidence that

they or it participated, coordinated, or had any linkage to alleged

prohibited conduct? What is the burden for a plaintiff like CCSD to

demonstrate that what it alleges is unlawful strike activity is

“concerted,” and “concerted” by whom? Do call-outs for illness have to

be shown to not be founded in fact, as the text of NRS 288.074(2)

appears to expressly demand?

III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The complaint in this matter was originally filed on July 31, 2023,

alleging that CCEA publicly threatened to strike, and that a strike was

5
imminent, in violation of NRS 288.700.

On August 1, CCSD filed its first Emergency Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The district court denied

the motion, on August 19, stating that:

For the Court to issue an injunction pursuant to NRS

288.705, it must find that a strike against the State or a
local government employer has occurred or unless enjoined
will occur. Although the Court is concerned about certain
statements made by the Defendants, at this point in time,
the Court finds that it has insufficient evidence that a
strike will occur within the meaning of the statute, and
therefore cannot issue the requested injunction.

Then, on September 11, CCSD filed a renewed Emergency Motion

for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”).

CCSD claimed that a teachers’ strike was currently in progress, in

violation of NRS 288.705, and that CCEA was coordinating that strike.2

In response, CCEA argued that CCSD presented no evidence that

any of the Appellants here had anything whatsoever to do with any

teachers in the district calling out sick or otherwise being absent.

On September 13, the district court held hearing on the Motion, and

2 On September 12, in contract negotiations, CCSD declared an

impasse, ending negotiations and routing the dispute between the parties
to binding arbitration.

6
granted the preliminary injunction. On September 13, Appellants filed a

notice of appeal to this Court, and intend to prosecute the appeal in

expedited fashion.

CCEA also has pending an anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss

CCSD’s complaint, set for hearing on September 19. The recent

injunction complicates that issue. It would benefit the district court and

parties if, as part of its order here, this Court stayed all proceedings in

district court so that proceedings are not multiplied.

IV. LEGAL STANDARD

In determining whether to grant a stay, this Court considers the

four N.R.A.P. 8(c) factors: (1) whether the object of the appeal will be

defeated without a stay; (2) whether appellant will suffer irreparable

harm/serious injury without a stay; (3) whether respondent will suffer

irreparable harm/serious injury if a stay is granted; and (4)

appellant’s likeliness of prevailing on appeal. See Hansen v. Eighth

Jud. Dist. Ct. ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 116 Nev. 650, 657, 6 P.3d 982, 986

(2000). While no one factor is more important, “if one or two factors

are especially strong, they may counterbalance other weak factors.”

Mikohn Gaining Corp. v. McCrea, 120 Nev. 248, 251, 89 P.3d 36

7
(2004).

V. LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. The Object Of The Appeal Will Be Defeated

The object of this appeal is to prevent Appellants and 18,000 Clark

County teachers from being exposed to an inadequate and legally-

insufficient injunction order. Clearly, absent a stay, that object will be

defeated, and the potential for sanction and draconian statutory

penalties for violation exists at this very moment.

B. Appellant Will Suffer Irreparable Injury Without A

Stay

As described above, the penalties for violations of the injunction

order regarding unlawful strikes are incredibly harsh, and it would be

manifestly unjust to expose Appellants and teachers to those penalties

under the terms of this injunction order as it currently stands. The

difficulty in the present circumstances, by virtue of the district court’s

vague order makes it impossible to render compliance. Furthermore, it

hardly needs to be said, teachers still get sick, and still have the right to

call out ill under their contract and in view of good community public

health practices.

8
 C. Appellant Is Likely to Prevail In These Proceedings

In weighing this factor, this Court has articulated that “a movant

does not always have to show a probability of success on the merits, [but]

the movant must ‘present a substantial case on the merits when a serious

legal question is involved and show that the balance of equities weighs

heavily in favor of granting the stay.” Hansen, 116 Nev. at 659, 6 P.3d at

987. The stay should be granted until this Court has the opportunity to

decide whether the district court’s injunction was appropriate.

As described above, it is unlikely that a reasonable person, much

less a reviewing court, can look at the meager terms of the injunction

order and maintain that it is not vague, overbroad, and non-specific—the

very things an injunction order simply cannot be.

D. Harm To Respondent

This, of course, is where CCSD will object most strongly, that the

potential for continued teacher absences is too great to justify a stay. But

the rights of individuals not to be subject to such injunctions, where the

penalties here might attach, is also great. CCSD claims that the alleged

strike will cause a total breakdown in education and cut short the

mandated 180 days of instruction—obviously, that’s not true, there have

9
been a total of 8 single-day closures so far, out of 367 District schools.

One cannot dismiss CCSD’s concerns regarding possible harm out

of hand, and Appellants do not here argue that. But now that CCSD has

declared an impasse in contract negotiations, it is certainly less likely

that if teachers have been, in fact, engaging in concerted and

impermissible strike activity not coordinated by CCEA, that they will

continue to feel that is effective political or economic protest conduct in

any event. The sooner this appeal is resolved, the sooner any harm can

be threatened or visited upon any party to this action.

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Appellants respectfully request that this

Court grant an immediate stay of the district court’s injunction order,

and of proceedings below generally.

Dated this 14th day of September, 2023

BRAVO SCHRAGER LLP

By: Bradley S. Schrager

Bradley S. Schrager, Esq. (SBN 10217)
Daniel Bravo, Esq. (SBN 13078)
6675 South Tenaya Way, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
Tele.: (702) 996-1724
Email: bradley@bravoschrager.com
Email: daniel@bravoschrager.com

10
 N.R.A.P. 27(e) CERTIFICATE

1. The telephone numbers and office addresses of the

attorneys for the parties.

ETHAN D. THOMAS, ESQ.

ANDREW S. CLARK, ESQ.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Telephone: 702.862.8800
Email: edthomas@littler.com
Email: asclark@littler.com

CRYSTAL J. HERRERA, ESQ.

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL
COUNSEL
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT
5100 West Sahara Avenue
Las Vegas, Nevada 89146
Phone: (702) 799-5373
Email: herrec4@nv.ccsd.net

Counsel for Respondent

2. Facts showing the existence and nature of the claimed

emergency.

On September 11, 2023, Respondent Clark County School District

(the “CCSD” or “Respondent”) filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction on Order Shortening Time

(“Motion) against Respondents. On September 12, Appellants filed an

11
Opposition to the Motion.

On September 13, the district court held a hearing on the Motion,

and granted the preliminary injunction on that same day. A true and

correct copy of the district court’s order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

At the hearing, Appellants requested a stay of the district court’s order,

and the district court denied Appellants’ request. On September 13,

Appellants filed a notice of appeal to this Court.

Appellants hereby seek a stay of the district court’s order granting

the preliminary injunction, pending appeal. The district court’s order is

overbroad and vague, which warrants immediate review by this Court.

See Maheu v. Hughes Tool Co., 88 Nev. 592, 598, 503 P.2d 4, 8 (1972)

(voiding an injunction whose language was “so uncertain and indefinite

as to be impossible of compliance”). Therefore, Appellants respectfully

request that this Court grant an immediate stay.

3. When and how counsel for the other parties and any
pro se parties were notified and whether they have
been served with the motion; or, if not notified and
served, why that was not done.

On September 14, 2023, Counsel for Respondent was notified in an

email that Appellants intended to seek immediate, emergency relief from

12
this Court, today and they were served with a copy of this Motion via

email.

I hereby certify that this Emergency Motion for Stay Under

N.R.A.P. 27(e) relies upon issues raised by Appellants in the district

court, and otherwise complies with the provisions of N.R.A.P. 27(e).

Dated this 14th day of September, 2023.

BRAVO SCHRAGER LLP

By: /s/ Bradley S. Schrager

Bradley S. Schrager, Esq. (SBN 10217)
Daniel Bravo, Esq. (SBN 13078)
6675 South Tenaya Way, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
Tele.: (702) 996-1724
Email: bradley@bravoschrager.com
Email: daniel@bravoschrager.com

Attorneys for Appellants

13
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that this Motion complies with the formatting

requirements of N.R.A.P. 32(a)(4), the typeface requirements of N.R.A.P.

32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of N.R.A.P. 32(a)(6) because it

has been prepared in a proportionally-spaced typeface, size 14, Century

Schoolbook.

I further certify that this Motion complies with the page limitations

of N.R.A.P. 27(d)(2). Finally, I hereby certify that I have read this Motion,

and to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, it is not frivolous

or interposed for any improper purpose.

Dated this 14th day of September, 2023.

BRAVO SCHRAGER LLP

By: /s/ Bradley S. Schrager

Bradley S. Schrager, Esq. (SBN 10217)
Daniel Bravo, Esq. (SBN 13078)
6675 South Tenaya Way, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
Tele.: (702) 996-1724
Email: bradley@bravoschrager.com
Email: daniel@bravoschrager.com

Attorneys for Appellants

14
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 14th day of September, 2023, a true

and correct copy of EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY UNDER

N.R.A.P. 27(e) was served upon all counsel of record by electronically

filing the document using the Nevada Supreme Court’s electronic filing

system.

By: /s/ Dannielle Fresquez

Dannielle Fresquez, an Employee of
BRAVO SCHRAGER LLP

15
 Electronically Filed
9/13/2023 4:40 PM
Steven D.Grierson
CLERK OF THE COURT

1 NEO
BRADLEY S. SCHRAGER, ESQ. (SBN 10217)
2 DANIEL BRAVO, ESQ. (SBN 13078)
BRAVO SCHRAGER LLP
3 6675 South Tenaya Way, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
4 Tele.: (702) 996-1724
Email: bradley@bravoschrager.com
5 Email: daniel@bravoschrager.com

6 Attorneys for Defendants

7
IN THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
8
OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR CLARK COUNTY
9

10
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL Case No. A-23-874996-C
11 DISTRICT,
Dept. No.: 8
12 Plaintiff,

13 vs. NOTICE OF ENTRY

14 CLARK COUNTY EDUCATION

ASSOCIATION; MARIE NEISESS, in
15 her capacity as President of the Clark
County Education Association; JAMES
16 FRAZEE, in his capacity as Vice
President of the Clark County
17 Education Association; JOHN
VELLARDITA, in his capacity as
18 Executive Director of the Clark County
Education Association; and DOES 1-10,
19 inclusive,,

20 Defendant.

21

22 ///

23 ///

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28

Case Number: A-23-874996-C

1 NOTICE OF ENTRY

2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION was

3 entered in the above-captioned matter on the 13th day of September, 2023. A true

4 and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

6 DATED this 13th day of September, 2023.

7 BRAVO SCHRAGER LLP

9 By: /s/ Bradley S. Schrager

BRADLEY S. SCHRAGER, ESQ. (SBN 10217)
10 DANIEL BRAVO, ESQ. (SBN 13078)
6675 South Tenaya Way, Suite 200
11 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113
Tele.: (702) 996-1724
12 Email: bradley@bravoschrager.com
Email: daniel@bravoschrager.com
13
Attorneys for Defendants
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 I hereby certify that on this 13th day of September, 2023, a true and correct

3 copy of NOTICE OF ENTRY was served by electronically filing with the Clerk of the

4 Court using the Odyssey eFileNV system and serving all parties with an email-

5 address on record, pursuant to Administrative Order 14-2 and Rule 9 of the

6 N.E.F.C.R.

8
By: /s/ Dannielle Fresquez
9 Dannielle Fresquez, an Employee of
BRAVO SCHRAGER LLP
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3
 ELECTRONICALLY SERVED
9/13/2023 3:30 PM Electronically Filed
09/13/2023 3:28 PM

1 ORPI
ETHAN D. THOMAS, ESQ.
2 Nevada Bar No. 12874
ANDREW S. CLARK, ESQ.
3
Nevada Bar No. 14854
4 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
5 Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169.5937
6 Telephone: 702.862.8800
Fax No.: 702.862.8811
7
Email: edthomas@littler.com
8 Email: asclark@littler.com

9 CRYSTAL J. HERRERA, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 12396
10 OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
11
5100 West Sahara Avenue
12 Las Vegas, Nevada 89146
Phone: (702) 799-5373
13 herrec4@nv.ccsd.net
14 Attorneys for Plaintiff
15 Clark County School District
DISTRICT COURT
16
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
17

18 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

19 Plaintiff, Case No.: A-23-874996-C

20
v. Dept. No.: 8
21
CLARK COUNTY EDUCATION
22 ASSOCIATION; MARIE NEISESS, in her PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
capacity as President of the Clark County
23 Education Association; JAMES FRAZEE, in
his capacity as Vice President of the Clark
24
County Education Association; JOHN
25 VELLARDITA, in his capacity as Executive
Director of the Clark County Education
26 Association; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
27 Defendants.
28

Case Number: A-23-874996-C

 1 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Clark County School District’s (hereinafter

2 the “District” or “CCSD”) Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary

3 Injunction on Order Shortening Time against Defendants Clark County Education Association,

4 Marie Neisess, James Frazee, and John Vellardita (“Defendants”).

5 WHEREUPON, the Court considered the Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining

6 Order and Preliminary Injunction on Order Shortening Time, the declarations attached thereto, the

7 documents submitted therewith, and other arguments and evidence presented to the Court, the Court

8 hereby orders as follows:

9 The Court finds that a strike has occurred as defined in NRS 288.074. IT IS HEREBY

10 ORDERED that CCSD’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.

11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

12 1. In accordance with NRS 288.705(2), Defendants and the bargaining unit they represent

13 are enjoined and prohibited from continuing the strike and any other actions which

14 amount to a strike, as defined in NRS 288.074; and

15 2. Defendants are ordered to communicate the terms of this Order with all of the CCEA

16 bargaining unit.

17 _______________________________
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
18 Respectfully Submitted by:
19

20

21
______________________
22
ETHAN D. THOMAS, ESQ.
23 ANDREW S. CLARK, ESQ.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
24 CRYSTAL J. HERRERA, ESQ.
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
25 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
26
Approved by:
27
/s/ Daniel Bravo
28

Page 2 of 2
 1
CSERV
2
DISTRICT COURT
3 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
4

6 Clark County School District, CASE NO: A-23-874996-C

Plaintiff(s)
7 DEPT. NO. Department 8
vs.
8
Clark County Education
9
Association, Defendant(s)
10

11
AUTOMATED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
12
This automated certificate of service was generated by the Eighth Judicial District
13 Court. The foregoing Order Granting Preliminary Injunction was served via the court’s
14 electronic eFile system to all recipients registered for e-Service on the above entitled case as
listed below:
15
Service Date: 9/13/2023
16
Ethan Thomas edthomas@littler.com
17

18 Crystal Herrera herrec4@nv.ccsd.net

19 Elsa Pena penaec@nv.ccsd.net

20 Joanne Conti jconti@littler.com

21
Maribel Rodriguez mrodriguez@littler.com
22
Andrew Clark asclark@littler.com
23
Jenny Sharpe jsharpe@littler.com
24
Dannielle Fresquez dannielle@bravoschrager.com
25

26 Bradley Schrager bradley@bravoschrager.com

27 Daniel Bravo daniel@bravoschrager.com

28
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28