Golub v. Swaaley et al

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Golub's motion to stay these proceedings is moot, since he has already filed another Rule 59 motion and a notice of appeal. Golub's motions pursuant to Rules 59 and 60 of the F ederal Rules of Civil Procedure are denied for the same reasons explained in the Court's Memoranda and Orders dated September 26, 2018; September 27, 2019; and September 29, 2020. Golub shall show cause in an affirmation to be filed within 30 da ys of the date of this Memorandum and Order why he should not be enjoined from filing any further documents in this action (except for documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) and from filing any further action s in this district without prior Court approval. If Golub fails to submit an affirmation within the time allowed, or if his affirmation does not set forth good cause why this injunction should not be entered, he will be barred from filing any furthe r submissions in this case (except for documents directed to the Second Circuit) and any further actions in this district without prior Court approval. In light of Golub's history of vexatious litigation, his applications to file papers electron ically with the Court are denied. Although Golub has consented to electronic notification, the Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order and Order to Show Cause to Golub and to note the mailing on the docket. Ordered by Chief Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 11/13/2020. (Taronji, Robert)

Case 1:16-cv-05386-RRM-LB Document 35 Filed 11/13/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 742

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------x
DR. J. DAVID GOLUB,
Plaintiff,
-againstMICHAEL L. SWAALEY, et al.,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
16-CV-5386 (RRM) (LB)

Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------x
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, Chief United States District Judge.
In September 2016, plaintiff Dr. J. David Golub, proceeding pro se, commenced this feepaid action against Richmond County Surrogate Robert J. Gigante and three attorneys, alleging
misconduct by the defendants in connection with Surrogate Court proceedings relating to the
estate of Sylvia Golub. On September 6, 2017, the Court dismissed the action for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and entered judgment in favor defendants.
In the 26 months following the entry of judgment, Golub filed three motions pursuant to
Rule 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all of which were denied. The first, filed
October 3, 2017, (Doc. No. 20), was denied in a five-page memorandum and order dated
September 26, 2018, (Doc. No. 22). The second – a motion to vacate the September 26, 2018,
order – was filed in October 2018, (Docs. No. 23–25), and was denied in a two-page
memorandum and order dated September 27, 2019, (Doc. No. 27). The third motion – seeking to
vacate the September 27, 2019, order – was filed in October 2019, (Docs. No. 28–29), and was
denied in an electronic order dated September 29, 2020. That electronic order expressly warned
Golub that if he continued to file repetitive motions for reconsideration, the Court might enter an
order prohibiting him from making future filings without leave of Court.
Golub has not heeded this warning. Since September 29, 2020, Golub has filed four
more submissions with the Court, including motions pursuant to Rules 59 and 60. The first

Case 1:16-cv-05386-RRM-LB Document 35 Filed 11/13/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 743

submission, received by the Court on October 19, 2020, (Docs. No. 30–31), is a motion 1) to stay
these proceedings pending the filing of another Rule 59 motion and/or a notice of appeal and 2)
to permit Golub permission to file electronically. The second submission, received by the Court
on October 27, 2020, (Doc. No. 32), is a Rule 59 motion, requesting that the Court reconsider
and vacate all its prior orders in this case. The third submission, received by the Court on
October 28, 2020, (Doc. No. 33), is a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The fourth submission, received by the Court on November 5, 2020, (Doc. No. 34), is a Rule 60
motion, which includes another request for permission to file electronically.
Golub’s actions in continuing to file motions for reconsideration are consistent with his
well-documented, decades-long history of vexatious litigation in this district and elsewhere. The
Court notes that Golub has been barred from further filings in at least two district court cases.
See Golub v. Kidder Peabody & Co., No. 89-CV-5903 (WHP), 2010 WL 5422503, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2010) (“Golub is enjoined from attempting to file further applications with
this Court on this matter [and] … from addressing any correspondence to this Court or
contacting this Court in any manner.”); Golub v. Univ. of Chicago, No. 87-CV-2891, 1992 WL
333641, at *1–3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 1992) (noting that plaintiff had been enjoined from filing
any actions without prior Court approval against Ernst & Whinney, IBM Corporation, University
of Chicago, and Weiner & Company). He has also been sanctioned by the Second Circuit on at
least three occasions. See Golub v. Tierney, No. 11-286, 2d Cir. mandate dated July 11, 2011
(recorded on S.D.N.Y. Docket No. 89-CV-5809 (WHP) as Doc. No. 115).
“A district court may, in its discretion, impose sanctions against litigants who abuse the
judicial process.” Iwachiw v. N.Y. State Dep’t. of Motor Vehicles, 396 F.3d 525, 528 (2d Cir.
2005). “Permissible sanctions include restricting a litigant’s future access to courts.” Golub,
2010 WL 5422503, at *2 (citing Iwachiw, 396 F.3d at 528). Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
2

Case 1:16-cv-05386-RRM-LB Document 35 Filed 11/13/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 744

1. Golub’s motion to stay these proceedings is moot, since he has already filed another Rule
59 motion and a notice of appeal.
2. Golub’s motions pursuant to Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are
denied for the same reasons explained in the Court’s Memoranda and Orders dated
September 26, 2018; September 27, 2019; and September 29, 2020.
3. Golub shall show cause in an affirmation to be filed within 30 days of the date of this
Memorandum and Order why he should not be enjoined from filing any further
documents in this action (except for documents directed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit) and from filing any further actions in this district without
prior Court approval. If Golub fails to submit an affirmation within the time allowed, or
if his affirmation does not set forth good cause why this injunction should not be entered,
he will be barred from filing any further submissions in this case (except for documents
directed to the Second Circuit) and any further actions in this district without prior Court
approval.
4. In light of Golub’s history of vexatious litigation, his applications to file papers
electronically with the Court are denied.
5. Although Golub has consented to electronic notification, the Clerk of Court is directed to
mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order and Order to Show Cause to Golub and to
note the mailing on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
November 13, 2020

Roslynn R. Mauskopf
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
Chief United States District Judge

3