Rubin v. New York City Board of Education
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-10208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Rubin v. New York City Board of Education, Judge Schofield granted defendants’ motion to dismiss because Rubin’s complaint was too lengthy and unclear under Rule 8.
Lise Rubin’s case was affected because the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for violating Rule 8, while allowing Rubin to request permission to file a compliant amended complaint by March 31, 2023. The order also denied several of her other requests as moot.
What happened
In Rubin v. New York City Board of Education, pro se plaintiff Lise Rubin sued the New York City Board of Education and others over her work providing occupational therapy services to special-needs students. Her complaint raised claims under federal, state, and city laws, including disability and retaliation laws, employment laws, and state common law.
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker’s recommendation and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. Judge Schofield ruled that the complaint did not meet the requirement for a short and plain statement because it was lengthy, confusing, repetitive, and did not clearly tell defendants what claims were being brought against them. The court allowed Rubin to request permission to file a new complaint meeting specified requirements by March 31, 2023, and denied several other requests as moot.
Judge Schofield explained that any proposed amended complaint should focus on certain retaliation claims and contain only enough facts to support each claim. The order did not use the terms “with prejudice” or “without prejudice”; it stated that Rubin could seek permission to amend and that the case would be dismissed if she did not timely submit the required request and proposed complaint.
The detailed version
- Rubin v. New York City Board of Education · No. 1:20-cv-10208
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 3, 2023
Background
Lise Rubin, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Board of Education and other defendants concerning her work from 2012 through 2018 as an “Independent Provider” of occupational therapy services to special-needs students in New York City schools. The complaint asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Titles II and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act; sections 504 and 505(a)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act; the New York State Human Rights Law; the New York City Human Rights Law; the Fair Labor Standards Act; several provisions of New York law; and state-law claims for defamation and fraud.
Rubin filed several versions of her complaint and received seven extensions to amend. The operative complaint was accepted even though it was filed about a month after the final deadline. The court also reminded her that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to contain a short and plain statement of the claim and told her not to file attachments. Rubin later filed exhibits anyway.
Report and objections
Defendants moved to dismiss. Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker recommended granting the motion in full because the complaint violated Rule 8. In the alternative, the Report recommended dismissing all but two categories of claims: certain disability-law retaliation claims against the New York City Board of Education and certain state and city retaliation claims against individual defendants.
Rubin filed objections, which were untimely but considered in full. The district court reviewed the Rule 8 recommendation anew and construed the objections liberally.
Court’s analysis
Judge Schofield concluded that the complaint was not short or plain. The court described it as 168 pages long, containing 1,920 paragraphs and more than 200 pages of exhibits. It included extensive background unrelated to the claims, lengthy reproductions of correspondence and memoranda, and attempts to anticipate defendants’ legal arguments. The court gave as examples a lengthy discussion about the difference between an occupational-therapy “observation” and “screening,” and allegations about possible future requests for sanctions.
The court found that the allegations were too lengthy, confusing, and conclusory to inform defendants of the claims against them. It also rejected Rubin’s arguments that the complaint’s length was justified by a comparable state-court filing and that she lacked enough time to edit and format the complaint. The court noted the seven extensions, the additional time given after the final deadline, and the fact that the court accepted the complaint and later-filed exhibits.
Disposition and possible amendment
The court adopted the Report’s recommendation to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court did not state that the dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice.
Rubin had requested leave to amend. The court permitted her to file, by March 31, 2023, a letter of no more than three pages requesting permission to file an amended complaint and explaining how it would correct the identified problems. The proposed amended complaint could not exceed 25 pages and could not include exhibits. The court stated that, if Rubin did not timely file the letter and proposed amended complaint, she would not be allowed to file it and the case would be dismissed.
The court suggested that any proposed amendment focus on disability-law retaliation claims against the New York City Board of Education for alleged retaliation occurring on or after December 3, 2017, and retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law against Witzke, Cullen, Coleman, Schlachet, Smith, and Baranello. The court also explained the factual elements that the proposed complaint would need to allege for those retaliation claims. Rubin’s requests for additional time, longer objections, and related materials were denied as moot.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.