Borjas v. New York City Department of Education
- Ona Wang
- 1:23-cv-10829
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Borjas v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Torres overruled Borjas’s objections to Judge Wang’s deadline-extension order.
Stacy A. Borjas and the defendants in the case; the ruling upheld an order extending the defendants’ deadlines and sent Borjas’s request for additional time to Judge Wang.
What happened
In Borjas v. New York City Department of Education, Stacy Borjas asked the court to reconsider Judge Ona T. Wang’s order allowing the defendants extra time to respond to the complaint and file a required pre-motion letter. The order granted the defendants’ request after the deadline had passed.
Borjas argued that the court’s rules allowed a deadline to be extended only through a particular type of pre-motion letter. She also argued that extending a deadline after it had passed was allowed only in extreme cases.
Judge Analisa Torres overruled Borjas’s objections. She held that the court had authority to extend deadlines after they expired when the delay resulted from excusable neglect, and concluded that Judge Wang’s order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Judge Wang was directed to address Borjas’s request for additional time to send her letter to the defendants.
The detailed version
- Borjas v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-10829
- Ona Wang
- Dec. 3, 2024
Background
Stacy A. Borjas asked Judge Analisa Torres to reconsider an order issued by Judge Ona T. Wang. Judge Wang had granted the defendants’ request, after the deadline had expired, for additional time to respond to the complaint and file a pre-motion letter under the court’s Individual Practices.
Judge Torres treated Borjas’s request as an objection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). That rule permits a district judge to change or set aside a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive matter if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A non-dispositive matter is a procedural issue that does not decide the claims themselves.
Borjas’s Arguments
Borjas argued that only a pre-motion letter filed under a specific provision of the court’s Individual Practices could pause the time to answer or move to dismiss. She also argued that a request made after the deadline could be granted only in an extreme case.
Court’s Analysis
Judge Torres rejected both arguments. She explained that the court has broad authority to manage its docket and decide requests for extensions of time. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) allows a court to extend a deadline after it has expired when the party’s failure to act resulted from excusable neglect. The rule does not limit that authority to extreme cases.
Judge Torres also rejected the suggestion that the court’s Individual Practices prevented the court from acting on matters outside the public docket, such as pre-motion letters. She stated that the court retains its authority to manage cases even when its rules govern conduct that is not filed on the docket.
Ruling
Judge Torres concluded that nothing in the Individual Practices or another applicable rule deprived Judge Wang of authority to grant the defendants’ request. She found that Judge Wang’s order was neither contrary to law nor clearly erroneous. The court therefore overruled Borjas’s objections. Under the existing order of reference, Judge Wang was to address Borjas’s request to have until December 9, 2024, to send her out-of-court letter to the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.