A Third Judicial District Court judge has temporarily blocked the City of Fernley from enforcing the March 4 resolution approved by the City Council expelling Councilman Stan Lau, ruling that Lau showed a likelihood the action violated Nevada’s Open Meeting Law.
Lau filed an emergency petition on March 24 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, along with a temporary restraining order, arguing the council could not vote to expel him because the agenda item did not list expulsion as a possible action. The court agreed there was enough evidence to justify immediate intervention.
The agenda item for that March 4 meeting, requested by Councilman Albert Torres, read: “Discussion and Possible action to adopt Resolution number 26-004 and discuss the competency, character, and/or alleged misconduct of Councilman Lau including the results of the independent investigation conducted by Sutton Law and Consulting, with possible action, including but not limited to: censure, removal from boards or committees, adoption of resolution, request for resignation, etc.”
Although the agenda item listed “Resolution number 26-004”, the resolution, which was included in the agenda packet, was Resolution 26-002. That resolution stated that Lau was permanently expelled from the City Council effective immediately, citing NRS 266.240; declared the seat formerly held by Lau vacant as of March 4, 2026; and stated that the vacancy shall be filled in accordance with NRS 266.225, including an applicable appointment or special election requirements.
After discussion, the council voted 3-2 to adopt Resolution number 26-002.
In his order, Judge Leon Aberasturi found that Lau would face “immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage” if the city moved ahead with declaring his seat vacant and filling it before the matter could be heard. The court also noted that Lau’s verified complaint and supporting declaration showed a reasonable chance of success on the merits, pointing out that a later agenda item explicitly stated the council would consider expelling a different City Council member, which the item involving Lau did not.
That agenda item, requested by Councilman Ryan Hanan to discuss the character, conduct and competency of Torres, did specifically list expulsion among the possible actions, but the item was removed from the agenda by a 3-2 vote of the council.
The court ruled that the balance of hardships favored Lau and temporarily waived any bond requirement.
Under the order, the city and its officers are barred from enforcing Resolution 26-002, including the provisions declaring Lau’s seat vacant and directing it to be filled at the next regular meeting. The Court ordered that the city has 10 days to show why a preliminary injunction should not be granted. Lau may file a reply once that response is submitted.
The temporary restraining order remains in effect until the preliminary-injunction hearing, which is set for April 10 at 2 p.m. at the courthouse in Yerington. Each side will have 90 minutes to present evidence and argument.
The order was issued March 26 at 11:30 a.m.
Comment
Comments