Ramaekers v. Creighton University

Citation: 312 Neb. 248Docket: S-21-848

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court; August 12, 2022; Nebraska; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Nebraska Supreme Court case Ramaekers v. Creighton University addresses a jurisdictional issue regarding an appeal from a district court's denial of injunctive relief. The court emphasized that jurisdictional questions not involving factual disputes are determined as a matter of law. It clarified that for an appellate court to have jurisdiction, the appeal must stem from a final order or judgment. Orders concerning temporary injunctions are typically not considered final; however, permanent injunction orders that leave no further issues for the trial court are deemed final under Nebraska law. The court found ambiguity in the lower court's order, necessitating a review of the record, which indicated that only a temporary injunction was sought and denied. Consequently, since the appeal was based on a non-final order, the court dismissed the appeal. The decision highlights the procedural distinctions between temporary and permanent injunctions and underscores the importance of clarifying the nature of the relief sought in determining jurisdiction.

Creighton University mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for students registering for classes in July 2021, allowing for exemptions contingent on a written agreement to receive a fully approved vaccine post-authorization. Following the FDA's full approval of certain vaccines on August 23, 2021, students who opted for the exemption were required to receive their first dose by September 7, 2021, or face administrative withdrawal and loss of campus access by September 10.

On September 7, just before the deadline, four students filed a complaint seeking to prevent Creighton from withdrawing non-compliant students. Creighton's legal team acknowledged the complaint but did not respond with a motion to dismiss or answer at that time. The following day, the students amended their complaint, adding a request for restoration as students pending court order, though they did not explicitly seek a temporary restraining order. The court granted a hearing for this motion, which was set for September 14, 2021.

During the September 14 hearing, all parties were present, and the court took the motion under advisement. Subsequent to this hearing, additional amended complaints were filed, introducing new plaintiffs while maintaining the original factual allegations. Ultimately, ten students pursued the action collectively. A hearing on Creighton's motion to strike these amended complaints occurred on September 17, 2021, where the court overruled the motion and addressed the students’ request for injunctive relief.

On September 22, 2021, the court issued a written order detailing the procedural history, addressing both Creighton's motion to strike and the students' requests for injunctive relief.

The Court concluded that the Students’ request for injunctive relief was based on a breach of contract theory related to an alleged agreement with Creighton regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. Although the existence of a contract was not definitively established, the Court found that the Students’ commitment to receive a fully FDA-approved vaccine was part of that agreement. The Court determined that the Students did not demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits of their case. Consequently, the Court denied the Students’ requests for injunctive relief, including any motions for temporary restraining orders or temporary injunctions under Nebraska statutes. 

The Students filed an appeal, which the Court moved to its docket. In their appeal, the Students presented eight assignments of error challenging the district court’s refusal to grant injunctive relief. Creighton, however, contended that the appeal lacked jurisdiction, arguing that the order only denied temporary injunctive relief, rendering it neither final nor appealable. 

The appellate court emphasized that it must first determine its jurisdiction, which depends on whether the appeal is from a final order. Established law indicates that orders concerning temporary injunctions are not final, while orders regarding permanent injunctions are considered final. The Students argued that the denial of their request for injunctive relief amounted to a denial of a permanent injunction, citing the language of the order. In contrast, Creighton maintained that the order only pertained to temporary injunctive relief. 

The principles of law governing the interpretation of judgments were highlighted, indicating that a judgment’s meaning is derived from its explicit language unless ambiguous. Ambiguity arises when a judgment can be interpreted in multiple reasonable ways, allowing for construction based on the broader record.

The principles applicable to orders, especially final ones, are examined in the context of a specific order that is deemed ambiguous. The order in question denied Students' requests for injunctive relief against Creighton's COVID-19 vaccine policy. However, the language used can be interpreted in conflicting ways. While it appears to deny a permanent injunction, the court's analytical framework resembles that used for temporary injunctions, indicating a potential conflict in interpretation.

The order also references the possibility of the Students’ motions being construed as requests for temporary relief, suggesting that the court may have intended to issue a temporary injunction rather than a permanent denial. The ambiguity necessitates a review of the record, including the parties' actions and statements during hearings and filings.

Students’ motion explicitly sought temporary restoration as students pending further court order, reinforcing the temporary nature of their request. Additionally, at the time of the motion, Creighton had not yet filed an answer, raising concerns about issue framing, which is typically guided by pleadings. The court's hearing on the motion was interpreted as addressing temporary relief, as both parties accepted the court's characterization without objection. This interpretation allowed the court to consider the motion for temporary relief while limiting the scope of the hearing.

Neither party objected to the court’s limitation regarding the case. Students argued for a temporary injunction, asserting that their allegations met the necessary standards and expressing a desire for more evidence to be brought forth. They believed this would help clarify the case. Creighton countered by highlighting the challenges in defending against evolving allegations and pointed out deficiencies in Students' complaint, including the lack of identification of several individuals named in the case and that two named plaintiffs had already received the COVID-19 vaccine, thus lacking relevance to the lawsuit. Creighton further argued that there was no medical evidence supporting Students’ claims of serious medical conditions that would warrant an exemption from vaccination.

In their rebuttal, Students acknowledged the dynamic nature of the case but maintained that a temporary injunction would allow them to refine their pleadings. The court concluded the hearing by taking the matter under advisement, expressing a desire to issue a ruling quickly without indicating any intention to rule on the merits of the complaint.

Three days later, the court orally denied Students' request for a temporary injunction, stating that they had not demonstrated irreparable injury or a likelihood of success on the breach of contract claim against Creighton. Students’ attorney sought clarification on whether this ruling was final and if the case was dismissed. The court clarified that it was not a final order, as the complaint still sought breach of contract-related damages and claims for unjust enrichment. Creighton's attorney reinforced that the denial of the injunction did not constitute a dismissal of the case. The court concluded without providing a definitive stance on whether issues remained before it, indicating that the order only pertained to the request for a temporary injunction.

The court established that only the issue of a temporary injunction was under consideration, with no stipulation for a final judgment based on the evidence presented. Neither party filed motions to dismiss or for summary judgment to address the merits of the Students’ complaint. At the September 14, 2021, hearing, the court clarified that it was only ruling on the request for temporary injunctive relief, instructing the parties to proceed accordingly. The court emphasized the procedural differences between temporary and permanent injunctions, noting that a preliminary injunction aims to preserve the parties' positions until a trial can occur, typically requiring less formal procedures and evidence. The court reiterated that it is generally inappropriate for a trial court to issue a final judgment on the merits at the temporary injunction stage, as this could infringe on due process rights. Since neither Students nor Creighton presented their full cases during the hearing, interpreting the order as a final judgment would raise due process concerns. The court concluded that the order merely denied Students’ request for temporary injunctive relief and cited a precedent indicating that such denials are not final or appealable orders. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.