Coney v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------- X : SESCILY RENEE CONEY, : : Plaintiff, : : 25-CV-5011 (VSB) -against - : : ORDER : THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA : UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW : YORK, et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------- X VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On June 13, 2025, pro se Plaintiff filed her complaint alleging, among other things, breach of contract, defamation, bullying, hazing, extortion, and retaliation, as well as violations of, among other things, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York City Human Rights Law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (Doc. 1.) On June 16, 2025, Plaintiff paid the filing fees to commence this action.

Among her requests for relief is a request for an emergency, ex parte temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a preliminary injunction as to Columbia University. (Doc. 1 at 51.) Although Plaintiff does not formally file a motion for a TRO or preliminary injunction, I construe Plaintiff’s complaint liberally to make such a request. Indeed, Plaintiff also filed a 194- page1 memorandum of law including exhibits in support of her emergency, ex parte request for a TRO. (Doc. 2 (“Mem.”).) On June 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a 187-page supplemental declaration Plaintiff’s memorandum of law is not in compliance with Local Civil Rule 7.1, which provides for certain formatting requirements and word- or page-limits. For any submissions in the future, Plaintiff is instructed to comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1, the Local Civil Rules more generally, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. including exhibits in support of her request. (Doc. 6.) On June 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed a 70- page emergency supplemental notice of retaliatory withdrawal including exhibits. (Doc. 7.)

Plaintiff’s request to proceed ex parte is DENIED for failure to “clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff has not clearly shown that she suffers immediate and irreparable injury to warrant a temporary restraining order. See Madej v. Yale Univ., No. 20-CV-133, 2020 WL 1614230, at *6 (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2020) (“Numerous courts in this Circuit have concluded that a dismissed student will not suffer irreparable harm in the absence of reinstatement.” (collecting cases)).

I will therefore reserve judgment on Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction until I have heard from the parties. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, on or before June 27, 2025, Plaintiff shall serve on each Defendant the following documents: (1) this Order; (2) Plaintiff’s complaint, (Doc. 1); (3) Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of Plaintiff’s emergency ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, (Doc. 2); (4) Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration, (Doc. 6); and (5) Plaintiff’s emergency supplemental notice, (Doc. 7).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before June 30, 2025, Plaintiff shall file an affidavit of service as to each Defendant on ECF.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before July 9, 2025, Defendants shall file their opposition, including any supporting affidavits.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before July 14, 2025, Plaintiff shall file her reply, if any.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to issue a summons as to each Defendant.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2025 , New York, New York Wy Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge