Gargi Shinde v. Chamber Music America, Inc., Kevin Kwan Loucks, Margery Hwang a/k/a Mimi Hwang, Lecolion Washington, Jennifer Grim, and Peter A. Walker

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED GARGI SHINDE, DOC DATE FILED: _ 2/13/2026 Plaintiff, -against- 23 Civ. 2554 (AT) CHAMBER MUSIC AMERICA, INC., KEVIN ORDER KWAN LOUCKS, and MARGERY HWANG a/k/a MIMI HWANG, LECOLION WASHINGTON, JENNIFER GRIM, and PETER A. WALKER, Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order adopting the Honorable Ona T. Wang’s report and recommendation (the “R&R”), which granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motions to dismiss. See Mot., ECF No. 111; Mem., ECF No. 111-1; CMA Opp., ECF No. 114; Walker Opp., ECF No. 115; Reply, ECF No. 116; see also Order, ECF No. 100; R&R, ECF No. 94. Plaintiff's motion was submitted three months after the Court’s order adopting Judge Wang’s R&R. Local Civil Rule 6.3 requires motions for reconsideration of a court’s order to be filed within fourteen days after entry of the challenged order. Although, as Plaintiff observes, the Court has discretion to “overlook a party’s failure to comply with local court rules,” Commerzbank AG v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 100 F.4th 362, 377 (2d Cir. 2024), Plaintiff does not explain why the Court should excuse such a lengthy delay, see Mem. at 6, and the Court finds that it would be unduly prejudicial to reinstate claims against the three Defendants who have already been dismissed from this action, see Defs. Ltr., ECF No. 113; CMA Opp. at 1-2. Accordingly, the majority of Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED as untimely. Nevertheless, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration solely as it pertains to her 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim against Defendants Chamber Music America, Inc., and Kevin Kwan Loucks. Because Plaintiff is correct that § 1981 may apply to the practices of individuals other than employers, see Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62, 75 (2d Cir. 2000); Patterson v. Cnty. of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206, 226 (2d Cir. 2004); Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc., 774 F.3d 140, 151 n.6 (2d Cir. 2014); Knox v. CRC Mgmt. Co., LLC, 134 F Ath 39, 51 (2d Cir. 2025), the Court finds that Plaintiff's complaints to Loucks about Susan Dadian’s allegedly racially discriminatory behavior, see Am. Compl., ECF No. 60, ff 81—85, 93, 97, 102, plausibly qualify as protected activity on which Plaintiff may base her § 1981 retaliation claim, id. 195-201. Any prejudice to the remaining Defendants from this modification of the Court’s order is minimal, as the Court has already allowed a retaliation claim based on the same set of underlying facts to proceed against the same Defendants under the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8- 107(7). See Order at 7.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 111. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 13, 2026 ANALISA TORRES New York, New York United States District Judge