Nampiaparampil v. The New York City Campaign Finance Board et al
Filing
103
ORDER with respect to 102 Letter Motion to Compel. City is hereby directed to respond by Wednesday, January 29, 2025. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 1/27/2025) (jca)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
—----------------------------------------------------x
DEVI NAMPIAPARAMPIL,
Plaintiff,
–against–
THE NEW YORK CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD,
AMY LOPREST, DAVID DUHALDE, HANNAH EGERTON,
FREDERICK SCHAFFER, BETHANY PERSKIE, MATTHEW
SOLLARS, JACLYN WILLIAMS & THE CITY OF NEW YORK
Defendants
at 4.
LETTER-MOTION
TO COMPEL
FINAL
DETERMINATION
ON CAMPAIGN
AUDIT
No. 23 Civ. 6391
January 27, 2025
Dear Judge Ramos,
I am the Plaintiff in this matter. We currently have a hearing before this Court scheduled for
this Thursday, January 30, 2025 at 2:30pm. I respectfully ask the Court to also consider, at
that hearing, this Letter-Motion to compel the Defendant, New York City Campaign Finance
Board (“CFB”) to issue a final determination on its audit of my 2021 campaign, Dr. Devi For
NYC. This audit, which was initiated approximately one month after I filed litigation against
the CFB, has been weaponized as a retaliatory tool, imposing burdens that violate my First
and Fourteenth Amendment rights. It undermines my engagement in future political
campaigns and wastes my time and resources, interfering with my practice of medicine.
THE CURRENT SITUATION
Despite my full compliance in providing all of the financial transactions the campaign ever
made by January 12, 2022, in addition to a complete response to the audit on May 8, 2023,
the CFB has unreasonably delayed issuing a determination, leaving me in an indefinite state
of uncertainty. The CFB additionally imposed a retaliatory deadline that coincided with my
appeal deadline in the NYS Supreme Court case Nampiaparampil v. N.Y.C. Campaign Fin. Bd.,
Index No. 159019/2022, (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023). That case specifically related to the Voter
Guide and the mandatory televised debate, further demonstrating the CFB’s bad faith and
unconstitutional interference with my civil rights. Moreover, the CFB has continued to
impose burdensome and unnecessary financial disclosure requirements on me, despite
there being no campaign activity. This has been done to improperly monitor my spending
on legal fees, to perform unwarranted searches on my laptop (through screen sharing), to
perform one-sided discovery during a Court-imposed stay of discovery, and to compel false
1
admissions of wrongdoing to undermine my credibility. The Defendants fail to
acknowledge the constitutional dimensions of this litigation.
1. Audit and Retaliatory Context:
The CFB served me with an audit of my 2021 campaign, listing numerous concerns,
approximately one month after I filed litigation challenging the CFB’s conduct and policies.
2. Facilitate Retaliation Through the Knowledge Ban:
My campaign faced extraordinary barriers due to the CFB’s “Lawyer Ban,” and “Accountant
Ban,” which prohibited me from retaining legal or accounting assistance unless my
insolvent campaign had enough money to pay for those services. These bans rendered me
defenseless against other constitutional injuries, including the audit.
The CFB also disallowed my mother, who served as the campaign Treasurer up until
Election Day 2021, from volunteering during the Audit, claiming the “fair market value” of
my mother’s contributions exceeded individual contribution limits. My mother is neither a
lawyer nor an accountant; but she is a smart and trustworthy person. That disqualified her,
and effectively stripped me of essential support, compounding the audit’s burdens.
3. Unreasonable Burden and Deadline Manipulation:
The CFB set the audit response deadline to coincide with my appeal deadline in our related
case before the NY Supreme Court, forcing me to choose between defending my civil rights
as well as my medical practice’s meritorious tort claims, and responding to the audit.
I submitted a complete response to the audit on May 8, 2023, but the CFB has taken no
action since that time. Of note, the Defendants performed intermittent discretionary and
burdensome “statements reviews” throughout my 2021 campaign for office, tying up my
staff and resources. All of the Defendants’ concerns were addressed in real-time and my
campaign had 0 suspected violations (cumulatively) on Election Day 2021.
The timing of the audit’s initiation and the overlap of deadlines with my appeal deadline
demonstrate bad faith. The current delay leaves me in a perpetual state of uncertainty,
hindering my ability to plan future campaigns or resolve outstanding issues.
4. Misuse of Financial Disclosures:
Beyond the audit, the CFB has imposed unnecessary financial disclosure requirements,
despite no campaign activity. It pre-populated false and immutable numbers in its web
portal and coerced me to certify them. If I didn’t, I faced a penalty of $10,000 for “failure to
file,” for each unsigned disclosure. Notably, I also uploaded attestations into their portal
about being under duress while making the false confessions. I labeled them as “Bank
Statements.” Then I took time-stamped screenshots to demonstrate the Defendants’ failed
attempts to frame me for fraud in real-time. This misuse of financial disclosures
demonstrates the CFB’s retaliatory intent and bad faith.
5. CFB’s Acknowledgment of Candidate Burdens:
In a March 23, 2020, letter from then-CFB Executive Director, Defendant Loprest, the CFB
explicitly acknowledged the significant burdens that audits impose on candidates,
2
particularly those who are actively campaigning. However, the CFB’s retaliatory actions
against me demonstrate its willingness to exploit these burdens to suppress dissenting
voices. The ongoing delay undermines my ability to engage in political activity, pursue
litigation, and clear my name of alleged violations. This delay serves no legitimate purpose
and is solely punitive.
THE CFB’S UNREASONABLE DELAY VIOLATES THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
The CFB’s indefinite delay in issuing a determination on Dr. Devi For NYC’s audit
constitutes a violation of my due process rights under the New York State Constitution and
CPLR § 7803(1). Agencies have a duty to act within a reasonable timeframe, particularly
when their inaction imposes significant harm on individuals. Under CPLR § 7803(1), an
agency’s inaction is subject to judicial review where it constitutes a failure to perform a
duty enjoined by law.
Courts have held that agencies must act within a reasonable timeframe, particularly
where delay causes ongoing harm. The CFB’s inaction exceeds any reasonable standard. No
meaningful action has been taken since May 2023 (21 months ago). No enforcement notice
has been issued even after the Agency received every one of the campaign’s financial
transactions, as it requested. That occurred in January 2022 when I closed the campaign
bank account. I campaigned 8 months. This audit has lasted more than 3 years.
COMPELLING A DECISION WOULD CLARIFY JURISDICTION AND ENSURE FAIRNESS
If the CFB proceeds with prosecution, the matter would fall under the jurisdiction of
this court, the JPML and the EDNY. If the CFB drops the audit, it would remove the lingering
threats of further penalties and prosecution, which it continues to hang over me like the
Sword of Damocles. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that this Court add
this issue to our pending hearing. If the Court denies my Motion for a Stay to allow the
JPML to render a decision on Consolidation and Transfer, then I respectfully ask the Court
to compel the CFB to issue a final determination regarding its audit of my 2021 campaign
and to provide such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
I affirm this 27th day of January 2025, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine of
imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that this document is being filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Devi Nampiaparampil
Devi Nampiaparampil
Pro Se Plaintiff
111 John Street Suite 2509
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?