Grezak v. Grezak, 670 F. App'x 15

Plaintiff Grazyna Grezak, proceeding pro se, filed suit in the Eastern District of New York against her daughter Evelina Grezak; numerous motions and filings followed, including after a settlement.
The magistrate judge issued orders including (1) a March 24, 2015 direction to "cease filing duplicative motions," and (2) a May 15, 2015 leave-to-file sanction barring Grazyna from filing new claims in the EDNY against Evelina or alleging breach of their settlement agreement without first obtaining leave from the magistrate judge.
Grazyna moved for reconsideration of the sanction; the district court denied reconsideration on July 10, 2015.
Grazyna appealed, arguing she was denied due process because she lacked notice and an opportunity to respond before the imposition of the leave-to-file sanction.
The Second Circuit reviewed the denial of reconsideration and the sanction for abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the leave-to-file sanction was imposed without required notice and opportunity to be heard	Grezak contended the sanction was issued without due process notice and chance to respond	The court (and implicitly Evelina) asserted prior orders (including March 24 and May 15) put Grezak on notice and she had an opportunity to be heard via her reconsideration motion	The Court held Grezak received adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard; no due process violation
Whether the leave-to-file sanction and its scope were an abuse of discretion	Grezak argued the sanction was improper and overbroad	The district court described a prolonged series of duplicative, harassing filings and tailored a narrowly drawn leave-to-file order	The Court held the sanction was supported by record facts and was narrowly tailored; no abuse of discretion

Wilson v. Citigroup, N.A., 702 F.3d 720 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing sanctions)
Cohen v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 799 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing motions for reconsideration)
Wolters Kluwer Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Scivantage, 564 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (scope of permissible discretionary decisions review)
Iwachiw v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 396 F.3d 525 (2d Cir. 2005) (factors relevant to leave-to-file sanctions and whether such relief is injunctive)
Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 1998) (requiring notice and opportunity to be heard before imposition of leave-to-file sanction)