The NOSSCR Board Case: Tro, Dismissal Motion and Settlement

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

The Keeve–Liner board case involved both a court order granting temporary relief and a later defense motion asking for dismissal. Those documents did different things. This updated report identifies them separately and adds the documented June 2026 resolution of 2025-CAB-000647.

The February 7 Temporary Order

Following a February 6 hearing, Judge Ebony M. Scott found a substantial likelihood that Keeve and Liner would succeed on their challenge to NOSSCR’s board-removal procedures. The written order discussed inadequate notice and insufficient time to prepare a response. It also found that the other factors for temporary injunctive relief favored the plaintiffs.

The order enjoined NOSSCR and Burkhalter from suspending or removing the two plaintiffs from the board, and preserved their full board rights. Its stated duration ran to the next hearing on February 21 or a later time the parties mutually agreed. That temporary procedural ruling was not a final determination of the financial accusations described in the complaint.

What the February 25 Motion Argued

NOSSCR and Burkhalter filed a motion to dismiss on February 25, docketed February 26. They argued that reinstatement, withdrawal of removal proceedings and the provision or offer of records had eliminated any remaining dispute. They also challenged personal jurisdiction over Burkhalter individually and asserted statutory protection for his volunteer role.

The motion disputed the financial allegations and said NOSSCR’s governance committee had found them meritless. Those statements were the defendants’ arguments. The filing of a dismissal motion was not itself an order dismissing the action or a judicial endorsement of the committee’s conclusions.

The Litigation Continued

The docket records a first amended complaint in March 2025 and further proceedings afterward. An April 8 order denied a request to postpone the board case’s hearing and clarified that the board and Nyman membership cases had not then been consolidated. The record therefore should not be summarized as though the February motion immediately ended the board case.

The June 2026 Settlement Dismissal

The parties filed a stipulation on June 10, 2026 dismissing the entire action with prejudice under a confidential written settlement. The docket records a settlement closure. The public stipulation does not disclose a payment amount or an admission of financial wrongdoing.

It generally assigns each side its own costs, expenses and attorney fees, with an express exception for different provisions in the confidential agreement. It asks the court to retain settlement-enforcement jurisdiction; this article does not convert that request into a separate judicial ruling. The documented outcome is a settled action, alongside the temporary relief the court had granted earlier.

What This Corrects

The earlier correction-only page did not provide the underlying documents. The public complaint, order, motion and dismissal are now available in the sources below. Keeping these stages distinct preserves the substance of the story without treating an accusation, a lawyer’s argument and a judge’s ruling as interchangeable.

Related Reading

• The Board Dispute Overview
• What the Financial-Records Complaint Alleged
• The Separate Nyman Turkish Timeline
• 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.

• Judge Scott’s February 7, 2025 Temporary Restraining Order
• NOSSCR and Burkhalter Motion to Dismiss, Filed February 25, 2025
• Judge Scott’s April 8, 2025 Scheduling Order
• Keeve–Liner Stipulation of Dismissal, June 10, 2026
• D.C. Superior Court Public Docket, 2025-CAB-000647

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.