Order | Filed: September 30, 2026
3086 Purchase LLC v. The Town/Village of Harrison et al
Civil Rights: Other | New York Southern
Order
OPINION AND ORDER re: 74 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File an Amended Complaint addressed to Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik from Maaren A. Shah dated July 19, 2026. filed by 3086 Purchase LLC, 33 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Old Oaks Country Club, Inc., 36 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Andrea Rendo, Rocco Germani, The Town/Village of Harrison. For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. All claims are dismissed with prejudice except for Counts I and III, which allege that the June Summons was issued to Plaintiff without rational basis in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and that the November Summons constituted retaliation in violat ion of the First Amendment. All claims against Defendant Old Oaks Country Club, Inc. are dismissed. The Motion to Amend is also DENIED in part, except that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint adding any allegations asserted in the Proposed Ame nded Complaint that support Plaintiff's surviving claims. Any amended complaint shall be filed by October 16, 2026. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 33, 36, and 74, and terminate Defendant Old Oaks Country Club, Inc. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke on 9/30/2026) Old Oaks Country Club, Inc. terminated., (Amended Pleadings due by 10/16/2026.) (ar)
Order | Filed: September 30, 2026
| Entered: September 30, 2026
Little v. City of New York
Civil Rights: Jobs | New York Eastern
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Order on Motion to Compel Order on Motion for Reconsideration Order on Motion for Sanctions
ORDER denying 151 , 153 , denying in part 152 and 155 , and granting 159 , 160 : This Order addresses the discovery disputes and requests raised in the parties' submissions at ECF Nos. 151, 152, 153, 155, 159, and 160.
Plaintiff's Motions
In two letters, pro se Plaintiff requests "clarification" of the Court's 12/04/2025 Discovery Order regarding document disclosures and authorizations, and further asks to increase her damages request and provide additional time to obtain records to do so. (ECF Nos. 151, 153.) In letters opposing Defendant's requests, Plaintiff also seeks to correct typos in earlier submissions. (ECF Nos. 159, 160.)
Reconsideration: The Court construes Plaintiff's request for "clarification" (ECF No. 151) as a motion for reconsideration of the Court's 12/04/2025 Discovery Order directing her to produce discovery related to her employment search after her employment with the City ended and concerning her employment as a pier agent. The motion is denied. "[R]econsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked--matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Companies, Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). Plaintiff provides no overlooked factual matters or legal authority to support reconsidering this ruling. Plaintiff's claim that Defendant produced a signed authorization for "outside work" during discovery, but not during her employment with the Department of Finance City (ECF No. 151 at 2), even if plausible, does not support reconsideration of the ruling. (ECF No. 152 at 2; ECF No. 152-2.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's application is denied.
Reopening Discovery: The Court construes Plaintiff's request for additional time to obtain records to increase her damages claim (ECF No. 153 at 2) as a motion to re-open discovery. The motion is denied. In determining whether to re-open discovery, courts generally consider: "1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court, 5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the district court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence." Gem Fin. Serv., Inc. v. City of New York, No. 13-CV-1686 (MKB)(RER), 2019 WL 8014411, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2019) (cleaned up); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). After carefully reviewing the relevant factors, the Court determines that Plaintiff does not demonstrate good cause to reopen discovery. The first and sixth factors moderately weigh in Plaintiff's favor: no trial date has been scheduled, and the salary information is likely to lead to relevant evidence to support Plaintiff's damages claim. That said, the remaining factors collectively weigh heavily in Defendant's favor. Defendant opposes this request (ECF No. 152) and would be prejudiced (albeit slightly) if Plaintiff is permitted to seek additional records now that discovery is closed. See Hicks v. Chavez, No. 23-CV-8088 (KMK)(VR), 2025 WL 35038, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2025). And it was foreseeable to Plaintiff that she would need to pursue any alleged "missing" discovery within the discovery deadlines yet failed to do so. Hart v. Artus, No. 16-CV-6808 (CJS)(MJP), 2025 WL 1671543, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. June 13, 2025). Accordingly, Plaintiff's application is denied.
Corrections: Plaintiff's requests to correct errors in her earlier filings with the Court (see ECF Nos. 159, 160) are granted. Plaintiff asks to correct her April 15, 2025 letter (ECF No. 142) at "paragraph three, line one, second word." (See ECF No. 1... (truncated)