Coney v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-05011
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Coney v. The Trustees of Columbia University, Judge Broderick denied ex parte relief, reserved the injunction request, and set briefing deadlines.
Sescily Renee Coney and the defendants, including The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York; the order imposed service and briefing deadlines on the parties.
What happened
In Coney v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Sescily Renee Coney, representing herself, filed a complaint alleging several claims, including breach of contract, defamation, retaliation, and violations of federal and city laws. She also asked for emergency orders against Columbia University without first hearing from the defendants.
Judge Broderick treated the complaint and supporting filings as a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The court found that Coney had not clearly shown that immediate and irreparable harm would occur before the defendants could respond.
Judge Broderick denied the request to proceed without notice, but reserved judgment on the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction until the parties submitted their positions. He ordered Coney to serve the defendants and set deadlines for their opposition and her reply.
The detailed version
- Coney v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-05011
- Vernon Broderick
- June 20, 2025
Background
Sescily Renee Coney filed her complaint on June 13, 2025, and paid the filing fees on June 16, 2025. She represented herself. The complaint alleged, among other things, breach of contract, defamation, bullying, hazing, extortion, and retaliation, as well as violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York City Human Rights Law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Coney requested an emergency, ex parte temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction concerning Columbia University. “Ex parte” means asking the court to act before the opposing party has been heard. Although she did not file a separate motion, the court treated her complaint as making that request. She also filed a memorandum, supplemental declaration, and supplemental notice with exhibits in support of the request.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)(A) requires a party seeking an ex parte temporary restraining order to clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will occur before the opposing party can respond. The court ruled that Coney had not made that showing. It cited a prior decision stating that courts in the circuit had concluded that a dismissed student would not suffer irreparable harm without reinstatement.
The court therefore denied Coney’s request to proceed ex parte. It did not decide at this stage whether to grant or deny the requested temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Instead, the court reserved judgment until it had heard from the parties.
Order and Effect
The court ordered Coney to serve each defendant by June 27, 2025, with the order, complaint, supporting memorandum, supplemental declaration, and emergency supplemental notice. She had to file an affidavit of service for each defendant by June 30, 2025. The defendants had to file any opposition and supporting affidavits by July 9, 2025, and Coney could file a reply by July 14, 2025. The Clerk was directed to issue a summons for each defendant.
The order addressed only the procedure and timing for the emergency request. It did not resolve the allegations or underlying claims in the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.