Massapequa Union Free School District v. Rosa

Docket

Proceedings

Recent docket activity

• 2026-10-06 Entry 52#52
• 2026-09-30 Entry 51#51
• 2026-09-08 ORDER denying 34 Motion for Pre Motion Conference. In an order dated 9/2/2026, the Court waived the pre-motion conference requirement for the State Defendants' motion to dismiss. Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 9/8/2026. (TRN)
• 2026-09-02 ORDER denying 49 Motion for TRO. To obtain a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, a moving party must demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. See, e.g., Doe v. Livanta LLC, 489 F. Supp. 3d 11, 16 (E.D.N.Y. 2020). "While delay does not always undermine an alleged need for preliminary relief, months-long delays in seeking preliminary injunctions have repeatedly been held by courts in the Second Circuit to undercut the sense of urgency accompanying a motion for preliminary relief." Silber v. Barbara's Bakery, Inc., 950 F. Supp. 2d 432, 439 (E.D.N.Y. 2013); see also Weight Watchers Int'l, Inc. v. Luigino's, Inc., 423 F.3d 137, 144 (2d Cir. 2005) ("[T]he failure to act sooner undercuts the sense of urgency that ordinarily accompanies a motion for preliminary relief and suggests that there is, in fact, no irreparable injury.") (quoting Tough Traveler, Ltd. v. Outbound Prods., 60 F.3d 964, 968 (2d Cir. 1995)). In considering whether to grant a temporary restraining order, a district court must examine "whether the movants have demonstrated a threat of irreparable harm that will occur immediately" unless the Court acts to preserve the status quo. Goldstein v. Hochul, No. 22-cv-8300, 2022 WL 20305832, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2022); see also id. at *2 ("Because temporary restraining orders are fundamentally an emergency relief mechanism, 'delay in seeking the remedy suggests that the remedy is not really needed.'") (quoting Minzer v. Keegan, No. 97-cv-4077, 1997 WL 34842191, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997)).Here, Plaintiffs' delay in seeking the extraordinary relief of a temporary restraining order undermines their claim of irreparable harm. This action has been pending for over ten months with little activity. Plaintiffs have sought, and the Court has granted, multiple extensions of their deadline to respond to the arguments raised in 34 the State Defendants' motion for a pre-motion conference, which was filed over six months ago and still has not been answered by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs moved--the evening before school resumed after months of summer vacation--for emergency injunctive relief. Having reviewed 49 Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, the Court finds that there is no basis for emergency relief, as nothing has materially changed since the Plaintiffs first filed this action. Plaintiffs' motion refers to a letter from counsel for the Federal Defendants, dated August 20, 2026, which Plaintiffs argue "crystallized" their "predicament." (ECF No. 49 at 10-11.) In that letter, the Federal Defendants sought voluntary dismissal from this action on the basis that "the United States does not appear to be adverse to [Plaintiffs'] legal positions[.]" (ECF No. 49, Ex. H at 1-2.) Having reviewed the letter, the Court concludes that the letter adds nothing materially new to Plaintiffs' "predicament," as it merely cites to the same style of enforcement action against other school districts that the Plaintiffs cited as a basis for this action as long ago as October 21, 2025. (Compare ECF No. 49, Ex. H at 2, with ECF No. 1 at 2 n.2.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with any reason to find that they would be irreparably harmed by allowing school to proceed in the same manner as it has for nearly a full academic year since this action was filed. Cf., e.g., Goldstein, 2022 WL 20305832, at *2 (denying a temporary restraining order where the movant sought to disrupt, rather than preserve, the status quo that had been in place for over a month). The motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. Additionally, pursuant to 39 Plaintiffs' second request for an extension of time to respond to 34 the State Defendants' pre-motion conference letter, the Court granted an extension of Plaintiffs' deadline to respond until 7 days after the Federal Defendants answered the Complaint. (See Elec. Order dated March 6, 2026). On August 24, 2026, Plaintiffs voluntarily
• 2026-09-02 SCHEDULING ORDER. The Court sets the following briefing schedule. Defendants shall file their opposition to 49 Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction along with their motion to dismiss by September 30, 2026. Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction along with their opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss by October 14, 2026. Defendants shall file their reply in support of their motion to dismiss by October 28, 2026. The Court's prior order directing Plaintiffs to respond to 34 Defendants' pre-motion conference letter is VACATED and the pre-motion conference requirement is waived for Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court's bundling rule is waived for the purpose of both motions. Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 9/2/2026. (TRN)

Filings on file (16 in 3 docket entries)

Browse and search the 16 court documents in the archive for this case.