Kerim v. ABM Industries, Inc.

S.D. New York

Kerim v. ABM Industries, Inc.

DecidedAugust 6, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-05599

StatusUnknown

This text of Kerim v. ABM Industries, Inc. (Kerim v. ABM Industries, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kerim v. ABM Industries, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: ED: 8/6/2025 SEVGINAR KERIM, ne Plaintiff, 24-CV-05599 (MMG) “against: ORDER ADOPTING ABM INDUSTRIES, et al., ae RECOMMENDATION Defendants.

MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge: On December 9, 2024, this case was referred to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo for general pretrial and for a report and recommendation on dispositive motions. See Dkt. No. 28. On February 21, 2025, Defendants filed various motions to compel arbitration and/or dismiss the case. Dkt. Nos. 49, 55, and 56. A few weeks before her response to the motions was due, Plaintiff requested leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 85. After holding a conference with the parties, Magistrate Judge Ricardo issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) on April 28, 2025 with respect to those motions. See Dkt. No. 96. The R&R granted Plaintiff's motion to amend and recommended that, in light of the filing of a Second Amended Complaint, the other three pending motions be denied as moot. The R&R notified the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any objections to the R&R must be filed within 14 days. Despite notification of the right to object to the R&R, no objections were filed. Where no timely objections are made, the Court may adopt the R&R as long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Sacks v. Gandhi Eng’g, Inc., 999 F. Supp. 2d 629, 632 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). As there are no objections and as the Court finds no clear error in the record, the Court hereby adopts the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the R&R, the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 49, 55, and 56 are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. Nos. 49, 55, and 56. Dated: August 6, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

, (Ts MARGAR} ARNETT United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: ED: 8/6/2025 SEVGINAR KERIM, ne Plaintiff, 24-CV-05599 (MMG) “against: ORDER ADOPTING ABM INDUSTRIES, et al., ae RECOMMENDATION Defendants.

MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge: On December 9, 2024, this case was referred to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo for general pretrial and for a report and recommendation on dispositive motions. See Dkt. No. 28. On February 21, 2025, Defendants filed various motions to compel arbitration and/or dismiss the case. Dkt. Nos. 49, 55, and 56. A few weeks before her response to the motions was due, Plaintiff requested leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 85. After holding a conference with the parties, Magistrate Judge Ricardo issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) on April 28, 2025 with respect to those motions. See Dkt. No. 96. The R&R granted Plaintiff's motion to amend and recommended that, in light of the filing of a Second Amended Complaint, the other three pending motions be denied as moot. The R&R notified the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any objections to the R&R must be filed within 14 days. Despite notification of the right to object to the R&R, no objections were filed. Where no timely objections are made, the Court may adopt the R&R as long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Sacks v. Gandhi Eng’g, Inc., 999 F. Supp. 2d 629, 632 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). As there are no objections and as the Court finds no clear error in the record, the Court hereby adopts the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the R&R, the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 49, 55, and 56 are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. Nos. 49, 55, and 56. Dated: August 6, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

, (Ts MARGAR} ARNETT United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kerim v. ABM Industries, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerim-v-abm-industries-inc-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack