Emergency Relief in the NOSSCR Membership Case

Updated October 17, 2026: This report retains its original 2025 publication date and now incorporates the court records identified below.

On February 18, 2025, Melissa Nyman and Nyman Turkish P.C. filed a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in their NOSSCR membership case. The court docket records the motion on February 19. This was a request for urgent relief in 2025-CAB-000940, not a judgment establishing the complaint’s accusations.

What the Requested Relief Would Do

The plaintiffs sought to prevent NOSSCR from removing Nyman as a member and to restore the rights associated with membership. They argued that the bylaws required procedures that had not been followed and that loss of professional relationships and opportunities could not be fully repaired with money. Those were the plaintiffs’ reasons for seeking an injunction.

NOSSCR had rejected that characterization. Its response letter disputed the factual account and the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the bylaws. The membership message reproduced in the complaint treated the issue as a declined application requiring approval, while the plaintiffs treated it as the removal of an existing member.

The Earlier Board Order Was a Different Record

On February 7, Judge Ebony M. Scott had issued temporary protection for Natalie Keeve and Michael Liner in case 2025-CAB-000647. That order addressed their status on NOSSCR’s board. It identified preliminary problems with notice and removal procedures and preserved their board rights for the stated period.

The Nyman complaint attached that earlier order, but attaching it did not make Nyman a protected plaintiff under its terms. An April 8 scheduling order in the board case expressly stated that the two actions had not then been consolidated, even though the court had scheduled them together. A shared hearing date did not erase the distinction between the cases.

What Happened After the Emergency Filing

The membership docket records an amended complaint in March and an amended preliminary-injunction motion in April. It later records stays and a June 10, 2026 dismissal stipulation. The closure papers state that the action was dismissed with prejudice under a confidential written settlement; the docket marks it closed.

The public settlement filing does not disclose whether the confidential terms restored membership or required a payment. This update reports the emergency request and the documented closure without treating a requested remedy as a remedy proved to have been granted.

A Useful Way to Read a Court Update

• Identify the case number and the people covered by the document.
• Check whether the document is a motion, a signed order or a party’s stipulation.
• Read the operative terms and any time limit, rather than relying only on the heading.
• Check later entries before treating temporary relief as the current outcome.

These organizational proceedings are separate from an individual Social Security disability appeal.

Related Reading

• The Membership Dispute Explained
• The Board Case’s TRO and Dismissal Motion
• Understanding Disability Appeals

Primary Sources

Records checked October 17, 2026. The court portal lists filings under “Events and Orders of the Court.” For Superior Court records, open the public case page and find the named document and date. Search by case number if the page does not open.

• D.C. Superior Court Public Docket, 2025-CAB-000940
• Nyman Plaintiffs’ TRO and Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Filed February 18, 2025
• Nyman Turkish and Melissa Nyman Complaint, Filed February 17, 2025
• NOSSCR Counsel’s February 7, 2025 Letter, Complaint Exhibit M
• Judge Scott’s February 7, 2025 Temporary Restraining Order
• Judge Scott’s April 8, 2025 Scheduling Order
• Nyman Turkish Stipulation of Dismissal, June 10, 2026

This is general reporting on public court records, not advice about an individual disability claim. A filing describes a party’s position unless this article identifies a court ruling.