Ferreira v. New York City Department Of Education
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-02937
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ferreira v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Furman denied Ferreira’s renewed reconsideration motions as frivolous.
Justine Ferreira’s motions in both related cases were denied; the opinion does not state a separate effect on N.R.
What happened
Justine Ferreira filed another round of motions in two related cases, asking the court to reconsider its earlier decision and remove a footnote. The court had already denied an earlier round of similar motions but amended the opinion by deleting one sentence from the footnote.
The court denied the new motions. It said the motions sought a third opportunity to revisit the same issue and were frivolous, if not sanctionable. The court stated that an appeal, rather than repeated reconsideration motions, was the proper way to challenge an alleged error.
Judge Jesse M. Furman directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the specified docket entries in both cases. This opinion did not impose sanctions or otherwise state a final outcome for the underlying cases.
The detailed version
- Ferreira v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:19-cv-02937
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 11, 2020
Background
These were two related cases brought by Justine Ferreira, individually and as parent and natural guardian of N.R. On March 2, 2020, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order in both cases. Ferreira then filed motions seeking reconsideration and asking the court to delete a footnote.
On March 5, 2020, the court denied those motions but agreed to issue an amended opinion deleting one sentence from the disputed footnote. Ferreira filed another round of motions seeking reconsideration and again asking the court to delete the footnote.
Ruling
The court denied the latest motions. It stated that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, obtain another hearing on the merits, or take another opportunity to argue the case. The court characterized this round of motions as frivolous, if not sanctionable. It did not state that sanctions were imposed.
The court also stated that, if Ferreira believed the court had made an error, her remedy was an appeal rather than multiple reconsideration motions. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 54 in case number 19-CV-2937 and ECF No. 57 in case number 19-CV-8519. The opinion did not otherwise decide the underlying cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.