Rubin v. New York City Board of Education
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-10208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Rubin v. New York City Board of Education, Judge Schofield closed Rubin’s post-judgment motion and barred further substantive filings until appellate remand.
Lise Rubin was directly affected by the restriction on further substantive filings; the restriction also governed further proceedings in the case involving the named defendants.
What happened
After a judgment and earlier rulings in Rubin v. New York City Board of Education, Lise Rubin, representing herself, filed a post-judgment motion concerning alleged legal errors about deadlines for certain New York whistleblower claims.
Rubin argued that the court and the defendants’ attorneys had applied the wrong deadline and had improperly limited her ability to file papers, obtain case copies, and receive accommodations. She asked the court to reopen and vacate earlier rulings, including a magistrate judge’s report and the judgment.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield did not decide those legal arguments in this order. She directed that Rubin file no further substantive papers until the case returns from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, warned that additional filings could lead to sanctions or filing restrictions, and directed the Clerk to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Rubin v. New York City Board of Education · No. 1:20-cv-10208
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 10, 2023
Background
Lise Rubin, who was representing herself, submitted a document titled a continued post-judgment sub-motion. It was identified as the first in a planned series of sub-motions and was filed in connection with earlier filings at docket numbers 279, 281, 285, 286, and 288. The document challenged rulings made during the case and sought relief from the judgment.
Rubin’s Arguments and Requested Relief
Rubin argued that the court had incorrectly treated claims under New York Labor Law §§ 740 and 741 and New York Civil Service Law § 75-B as subject to a one-year deadline. She contended that the correct deadline was two years. She also alleged that the court had repeatedly prevented her from fully briefing issues, denied requests for additional time and accommodations, and failed to provide paper copies of cases cited in judicial and defense filings.
Rubin asked the court to recognize the alleged deadline error, reopen and vacate earlier decisions and orders—including the magistrate judge’s January 2023 report—and reconsider related matters. She also requested recognition of a sanctions motion and paper copies of cited cases.
Court’s Action
The order did not decide whether Rubin’s proposed two-year deadline was legally correct, whether the earlier rulings should be vacated, or whether sanctions were warranted. Instead, relying on the court’s prior order at docket number 289, the court directed that Rubin file no further substantive papers in the action until the case was remanded to the district court from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The order stated that additional filings could result in sanctions, including filing restrictions.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Rubin and to close the motion at docket number 290. The order does not expressly state that the motion was granted or denied; it states that the motion was closed and imposes the filing restriction.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.