Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Nosik v. Singe

Nosik v. Singe

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

September 22, 1994, Argued ; November 22, 1994, Decided

Docket No. 94-7678

Opinion

 [*594]  McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-appellant is a school psychologist. She sued the Danbury Board of Education in the District Court for the District of Connecticut (Jose A. Cabranes, Chief Judge), to enjoin the Board from conducting termination hearings until after resolution of criminal proceedings against her. She moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court denied the motion, but issued a protective order sealing the record of the termination hearings. The court also denied [**2]  her request for attorneys' fees as premature.

Nosik appealed, arguing that: (1) she was entitled to a preliminary injunction; (2) the protective sealing order was ineffective; and (3) she was entitled to interim attorneys' fees. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. We further hold that we have no jurisdiction to review either the protective order or the denial of interim attorneys' fees.

BACKGROUND

Lida Nosik works as a school psychologist for the Danbury Board of Education (the "Board"). In 1993, state investigators arrested Nosik and her boyfriend, Michael Kovac, for allegedly defrauding car insurance companies by submitting false repair bills. Felony fraud charges are still pending against Nosik in Connecticut.

The Danbury School Administration (the "Administration") suspected that Nosik might have fraudulently obtained health insurance for Kovac by claiming that her boyfriend was her husband. The Administration asked for proof of her marriage. When Nosik refused to submit any proof, the Administration suspended her (with pay).

The Administration then investigated both the health and car insurance frauds and recommended [**3]  that the Board terminate Nosik for moral misconduct. The Board decided to commence termination proceedings, and notified Nosik of her statutory right to hearings. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-151. Nosik requested the hearings. She also asked, however, that the Board stay those hearings until the criminal proceedings concerning the car insurance fraud were resolved. The Board declined.

Still bent on staying the hearings, Nosik sued the individual members of the Board in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She moved for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the hearings would give prosecutors a preview of her criminal defense. She also claimed that if she invoked her right against self-incrimination during the hearings, she would be fired.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

40 F.3d 592 *; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 33129 **

LIDA NOSIK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANTHONY L. SINGE, individually and as Superintendent of Schools of the City of Danbury; ABNER BURGOS-RODRIGUEZ, individually and as a member of the Danbury Board of Education; GLADYS B. COOPER, individually and as a member of the Danbury Board of Education; BRIAN E. COTTER, individually and as a member of the Danbury Board of Education; PHILIP S. FENSTER, individually and as a member of the Danbury Board of Education; DANIEL J. HOGAN, individually and as a member of the Danbury Board of Education; CARLO J. MARANO, individually and as a member of the Danbury Board of Education; NANCY MARCUS, individually and as a member of the Danbury Board of Education; JOHN R. MITCHELL, individually and as a member of the Danbury Board of Education; NORMAN E. PUFFETT, individually and as a member of the Danbury Board of Education; LOUIS A. ROTELLO, individually and as a member of the Danbury Board of Education; and ROBERT B. SULLIMAN, JR., individually and as a member of the Danbury Board of Education, Defendants-Appellees.

Prior History:  [**1]  A school psychologist sued the Danbury Board of Education in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Cabranes, C.J.) to enjoin her termination hearings until pending criminal charges against her are resolved. The district court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction, but granted a motion for a protective order without awarding her interim attorneys' fees. She appeals.

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

protective order, preliminary injunction, hearings, termination hearing, district court, criminal proceeding, enjoin, attorney's fees, proceedings, injunctions, interim, interlocutory appeal, car insurance, federal court, modified, vacated, merits

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Appellate Jurisdiction, Interlocutory Orders, Criminal Law & Procedure, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, General Overview, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Abuse of Discretion, Remedies, Injunctions, Preliminary & Temporary Injunctions, Relief From Judgments, Grounds for Relief from Final Judgment, Order or Proceeding, Extraordinary Circumstances, Discovery & Disclosure, Discovery, Protective Orders, Judgments, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Due Process, Scope of Protection, Altering & Amending Judgments, Collateral Order Doctrine