Rubin v. New York City Board of Education
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-10208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rubin v. New York City Board of Education, Judge Parker denied briefing extensions and part of Rubin’s motion challenging the dismissal motion.
Lise Rubin and the defendants, particularly their briefing deadlines, page limits, and obligations concerning the sanctions request.
What happened
In Rubin v. New York City Board of Education, Lise Rubin asked for more time to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss and for permission to file a brief longer than 25 pages. She also asked the court to strike, correct, or nullify the motion to dismiss.
The court denied both requests for more time and additional pages. It required Rubin to file her opposition that day, limited to 25 double-spaced pages. The court also denied the part of her motion that sought to strike the motion to dismiss, explaining that the rule she cited applies only to pleadings, not motions to dismiss. The court did not decide the sanctions request at that time; it said the defendants would respond to that request at an October 6, 2022 conference.
Judge Katharine H. Parker issued the order. The order addressed briefing and related procedural requests, not whether the underlying claims should be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Rubin v. New York City Board of Education · No. 1:20-cv-10208
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 5, 2022
Background
Lise Rubin, who was proceeding without a lawyer, requested another extension of time to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss and an extension of the 25-page limit for her opposition brief. The opposition was originally due June 3, 2022, and the court had already granted Rubin numerous extensions. Rubin also filed a motion asking the court to strike, correct, or nullify the motion to dismiss.
Rulings on the Briefing Requests
The court denied Rubin’s request for more time. It explained that Rubin had already received numerous extensions, had filed lengthy letters and motions during that period, and again failed to request an extension at least 48 hours before the deadline. The court also denied the request for additional pages because giving Rubin substantially more pages than the defendants would be unfair and because additional pages were unnecessary.
The court stated that, when deciding the motion to dismiss, it would assume the complaint’s factual allegations were true and draw reasonable inferences in Rubin’s favor. Rubin therefore did not need to prove her case or establish that sanctions were warranted in her opposition brief. She needed only to address the defendants’ arguments, and she could cite pages of the complaint instead of repeating its contents. The court stated that it would critically evaluate the defendants’ arguments and would not treat their brief as automatically true, even if Rubin filed no opposition. Rubin’s opposition was due that day and was limited to 25 double-spaced pages.
Ruling on the Motion to Strike and Sanctions Request
The court denied the portion of Rubin’s motion that sought to strike the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court explained that Rule 12(f) permits a court to strike pleadings, and a motion to dismiss is not a pleading.
The court separately stated that, to the extent Rubin’s filing sought sanctions under Rule 11, it would set a date for the defendants to respond at the October 6, 2022 pre-motion conference. The defendants were not required to respond to that sanctions request before the conference. The order did not rule on whether sanctions should be imposed and did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.