Nampiaparampil v. The New York City Campaign Finance Board
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-06391
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Nampiaparampil v. Board, Judge Ramos scheduled a sanctions conference and ordered a response; he did not decide the sanctions motion.
Devi Nampiaparampil and the listed defendants and their counsel are affected by the scheduled conference and response deadline. The City was specifically directed to respond to the sanctions motion.
What happened
In Nampiaparampil v. The New York City Campaign Finance Board, Devi Nampiaparampil, representing herself, asked the court to sanction the defendants and their lawyers. She accused them of making contradictory statements about limits on paying lawyers, destroying or altering evidence, intimidating a witness, and misusing discovery procedures. These are allegations in her motion, not findings by the court.
Nampiaparampil requested sanctions under the federal rule governing court filings, a ruling preventing the defendants from taking inconsistent positions, a finding that they defrauded the court, referrals for disciplinary action, and orders concerning her ability to consult or hire lawyers. The motion also referred to a possible stay of the case and other pending motions.
Judge Edgardo Ramos did not decide whether sanctions or any other requested relief was warranted. Instead, he scheduled a conference for January 16, 2025, concerning the pending motions and directed the City to respond to Nampiaparampil’s sanctions motion by January 9, 2025.
The detailed version
- Nampiaparampil v. The New York City Campaign Finance Board · No. 1:23-cv-06391
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 2, 2025
Nature of the Document
This document is a court endorsement scheduling a conference and directing a response to a pending motion. It includes Nampiaparampil’s second motion for sanctions, dated December 27, 2024, but it does not decide that motion.
Background and Plaintiff’s Allegations
Devi Nampiaparampil, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Campaign Finance Board, Amy Loprest, David Duhalde, Hannah Egerton, Frederick Schaffer, Bethany Perskie, Matthew Sollars, Jaclyn Williams, and the City of New York. In the sanctions motion, she alleged that the defendants and their counsel engaged in misconduct that prejudiced her ability to litigate.
Her allegations included:
- The defendants made inconsistent statements about whether campaign candidates could pay for legal services after an election without violating contribution limits or facing penalties. - The defendants destroyed or altered electronically stored information, including past Voter Guides and audit reports concerning similarly situated candidates. - The defendants denied that a January 17, 2023 public hearing occurred and later offered different explanations after Nampiaparampil submitted time-stamped screenshots. - The defendants improperly used a stay of discovery while allegedly continuing their own information-gathering through a regulatory audit. - The alleged conduct affected her ability to obtain counsel and litigation evidence and caused other claimed prejudice.
Relief Requested
Nampiaparampil asked the court to impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the court’s inherent authority. She also sought judicial estoppel, which would prevent a party from taking inconsistent positions in the same litigation, and a finding of fraud upon the court. In addition, she requested referral of defense counsel to disciplinary authorities and orders clarifying whether she could consult or retain lawyers for her civil-rights claims, medical practice, or campaign without incurring campaign-finance penalties.
The motion also stated that the case had been submitted to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and that Nampiaparampil had separately requested a stay while that panel considered the matter.
Court’s Action
Judge Edgardo Ramos scheduled a conference for Thursday, January 16, 2025, at 3:30 p.m. concerning pending motions identified as Documents 57, 60, 62, and 86. The endorsement directed the City to respond to Nampiaparampil’s motion, identified as Document 86, by January 9, 2025.
The endorsement did not grant or deny the sanctions motion, make findings about the alleged misrepresentations or evidence destruction, rule on the requested injunctions, or decide the other pending motions. The document therefore records further proceedings rather than a decision on the allegations or requested sanctions.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.