Order | Filed: July 09, 2026
| Entered: July 09, 2026
Grande v. Hartford Board of Education et al
Civil Rights: Other | Connecticut
Order on Motion for Leave to File
ORDER denying 71 Motion for Leave to File.
The court denied in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment via written opinion in September 2025, ECF No. 48, and declined to reconsider its holding via written opinion in February 2026, ECF No. 54. Jury selection is scheduled for September 21, 2026. Defendant Hartford Board of Education ("the Board") now moves for leave to file a successive motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 72. The Board seeks to file a summary judgment motion asserting that Plaintiff cannot establish liability against the Board under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Plaintiff opposes the Board's motion. ECF No. 72.
"[D]istrict courts enjoy considerable discretion in entertaining successive dispositive motions." Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57, 68 (2d Cir. 2004). "Such motions, however, should only be considered for good reason." Singleton v. Grade A Mkt., Inc., No. 08-CV-1385 (JCH), 2009 WL 10689210, at *2 (D. Conn. Sept. 21, 2009); see also Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp. v. Dick Corp., 219 F.R.D. 552, 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (declining to consider successive summary judgment motion where movant had "not raised any new facts or arguments which it could not have raised in the first round of briefing"). Indeed, the Second Circuit has held that "successive motions for summary judgment may be procedurally improper if the arguments in the second motion could have been raised in the first motion." Brown v. City of Syracuse, 673 F.3d 141, 147 n.2 (2d Cir. 2012); accord Caraballo v. City of New York, No. 24-2051-CV, 2025 WL 1430152, at *1 (2d Cir. May 19, 2025) (summary order).
The Board acknowledges that it could have analyzed its liability under Monell when it moved for summary judgment in February 2025. ECF No. 71, at 4. No new evidence has come to light, nor has there been any intervening change in the law. The Board offers no explanation for why it failed to address this issue in its first round of briefing. See id. Under these circumstances, the court concludes that it would be procedurally improper to entertain a successive motion for summary judgment. See Brown, 673 F.3d at 147 n.2; Hoefer v. Bd. of Educ. of Enlarged City Sch. Dist. of Middletown, No. 10 CIV. 3244 ER, 2014 WL 1357334, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2014) ("Because [defendant] blatantly seeks to reargue points that he could have, but... did not make, the Court will not exercise its discretion to permit [defendant] to take a second bite at the apple."). Moreover, the court agrees with Plaintiff that a second round of briefing would prejudice Plaintiff and undermine judicial economy by delaying the scheduled trial of this action. Cf. Frederick v. Off. of Mental Health, Rochester Psychiatric Ctr., 515 F. Supp. 3d 29, 33 (W.D.N.Y. 2021) (entertaining successive motion because "any trial would not occur for at least several months" and "there would be no meaningful delay in the case by permitting Defendants to file a successive motion").
For these reasons, the court denies the Board's request to file a successive motion for summary judgment. If Grande fails to present facts supporting Monell liability at trial, the Board may file Rule 50(a) and (b) motions, as appropriate.
Signed by Judge Sarah F. Russell on 7/9/2026. (JM)