The parent company of Nightingale College has filed a motion asking a California court for an expedited preliminary injunction to compel the California Board of Registered Nursing (BRN) to process applications that would permit more than 1,300 graduates to sit the national licencing exam for registered nurses.
How the dispute unfolded
Nightingale argues the BRN has applied unpublished and undefined standards without prior notice, despite having previously authorised testing for nearly 2,200 graduates under the same curriculum and licensing almost 2,000 of those students. The company filed the original lawsuit on Aug. 24 and amended it this week to add constitutional claims against BRN Executive Officer Loretta Melby in her official capacity.
The BRN has recently told some Nightingale applicants they must complete extra coursework before being permitted to take the NCLEX‑RN. Those conditions reportedly include up to 140 additional direct patient care hours, with a requirement that 30 concurrent direct care and theory hours be completed in both obstetrics and paediatrics.
“The BRN’s opaque enforcement of underground regulations and vague requirements never officially adopted under California laws are causing great harm to Nightingale College’s graduates and California’s healthcare system.”
What Nightingale is asking the court to do
The school is requesting an expedited hearing on a preliminary injunction that would require the BRN to process pending Nightingale graduate applications to test under the published licencing standards Nightingale says California law requires. The motion seeks immediate relief so the affected graduates can take the NCLEX‑RN and begin nursing practice.
- Filed suit: Aug. 24 (original filing)
- Graduates affected: more than 1,300 currently barred from testing
- Previously authorised: almost 2,200 allowed to test; nearly 2,000 licensed
- Additional hours cited by BRN: up to 140 direct care hours, including 30 concurrent hours in obstetrics and paediatrics
Implications for students and the health system
The dispute centres on whether the BRN may impose what Nightingale describes as unwritten or “underground” rules that alter the requirements for licensure after students have completed an approved curriculum. Nightingale says the regulator’s approach is causing "great harm" to its graduates and to California’s healthcare system by blocking the path to licensure and employment.
The case raises questions about regulatory transparency and the stability of approved educational pathways. For students, the immediate consequences are clear: delayed access to the NCLEX‑RN, postponement of entry-level employment, and uncertainty about additional training that may be required to meet the regulator’s new demands.
| Item | Figure |
|---|---|
| Graduates previously authorised to test | ~2,200 |
| Graduates granted licences | ~2,000 |
| Graduates currently blocked | 1,300+ |
| Maximum additional hours cited by BRN | 140 direct patient care hours |
For nursing schools and students outside California, the case will be watched closely for precedent about how boards interpret and enforce curriculum standards. If courts side with Nightingale, regulators may be constrained to follow published rules more strictly; if the BRN’s approach is upheld, schools could face new layers of post‑approval oversight.
The Nightingale statement comes from the college’s parent company. The BRN has not been quoted in the filing available publicly through the company’s release. The school’s request for an expedited hearing signals the urgency for graduates awaiting the licencing exam and for employers counting on newly qualified nurses to staff clinical settings.
The motion for a preliminary injunction will ask the court to restore access for the affected graduates to sit the NCLEX‑RN while the broader legal dispute is resolved.
