Massapequa Union Free School District v. Rosa

Court
E.D.N.Y.
Docket number
2:25-cv-05892
Filed
Last filing
Assigned judge
Joan M. Azrack
Referred judge
Arlene R. Lindsay
Nature of suit
448 Civil Rights: Education
Cause
28:2201 Declaratory Judgement
Jurisdiction
Federal Question
Jury demand
Plaintiff
Case
Massapequa Union Free School District v. Rosa
Cite
Massapequa Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Rosa, No. 2:25-cv-05892 (E.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 21, 2025)
Source
Docket on CourtListener(opens another site)

The 16 court documents filed in this docket, as listed for its case.

Docket entries

The entries the archive holds for this docket. For the full docket, use the link above.

Clear
Docket entries
No.DateDescriptionDocument
51No descriptionOpen(opens another site)
52No descriptionOpen(opens another site)
No description
No description
Case Assigned to Judge Joan M. Azrack and Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (LJ)
A summons was not issued for one of the following reasons: No summons provided, please submit summons. The event can be found under the event Other Documents - Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet. (LJ)
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
Incorrect Case/Document/Entry Information. The 5 Amended Complaint entered on 12/5/2025 has been deleted from the docket sheet and re-entered for statistical purposes. All corrections have been made; no action is required by counsel. (LC)
ORDER granting 23 Motion to Amend/Correct the 22 Notice of Appearance. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on 12/19/2025. (RI)
ORDER re 30 : The time for Letitia A. James, Denise M. Miranda, and Betty A. Rosa to answer, move or otherwise respond to the complaint is extended to and including February 9, 2026. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on 12/29/2025. c/ecf (RI)
ORDER granting 35 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. By consent of the parties, the deadline is extended to March 17, 2026. Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 2/11/2026. (TRN)
ORDER terminating 33 Motion for Pre Motion Conference; Order Dismissing Parties re 36 . Party Jane Doe (on behalf of their minor daughter JANIE DOE) and John Doe (on behalf of their minor daughter JANIE DOE) terminated. Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 2/18/2026. (LP)
ORDER granting 37 : The time Linda E. McMahon and the United States Department of Education to answer, move or otherwise respond to the complaint is etended to and including April 15, 2026. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on 3/2/2026. c/ecf (RI)
ORDER granting 39 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 3/6/2026. (TRN)
ORDER granting 40 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 4/6/2026. (LNM)
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
No description
ORDER granting 41 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 5/28/2026. (TRN)
ORDER granting 42 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 7/1/2026. (TRN)
ORDER granting 43 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. The time for all Defendants to answer, move against or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended until September 15, 2026. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on 8/19/2026. (BJ)
ORDER granting 44 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement. Plaintiffs are directed to serve and file the amended pleading no later than September 3, 2026. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on 8/20/2026. (BJ)
Order Dismissing Parties re 48 . Party Linda E. McMahon (in her official capacity as United States Secretary of Education) and United States Department of Education terminated. Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 8/25/2026. (LP)
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
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)
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)
No description