Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 6/19/2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- X : SAMANTHA SIVA KUMARAN, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : 1:20-cv-3873-GHW : -v- : ORDER : ADM INVESTOR SERVICES, INC., : : Defendant. : : ------------------------------------------------------------------ X GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: On May 21, 2025, Judge Aaron held a conference on the record in this matter, during which conference he set a deadline for Plaintiff Kumaran to file an amended pleading. See Dkt. No. 375 at 14. During the May 21, 2025 conference, Judge Aaron referenced his order dated May 1, 2025, Dkt. No. 365, in which he denied a stay of the action with respect to Ms. Kumaran’s claims. See Dkt. No. 375 at 8. Ms. Kumaran did not file objections to the May 1, 2025 order. During the May 21, 2025 conference, Judge Aaron went on to deny Ms. Kumaran leave to file a motion to stay this action. See Dkt. No. 375 at 8. On June 4, 2025, Ms. Kumaran nonetheless filed a motion to stay, addressed to the Court. Dkt. No. 369. The Court denied this motion as improperly filed on June 5, 2025. Dkt. No. 370. Ms. Kumaran then filed another motion to stay on June 6, 2025. Dkt. No. 371. On June 4, 2025, Ms. Kumaran also filed objections to Judge Aaron’s May 21, 2025 order denying her leave to file a motion to stay. Dkt. No. 368. When a party files objections to a non- dispositive order of the magistrate judge, the district judge must “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The Court reviews Judge Aaron’s May 21, 2025 order for clear error or a decision contrary to law, and the Court finds none. Ms. Kumaran’s objections at Dkt. No. 368 are overruled. ‘The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: June 19, 2025 New York, New York \\ 2 f GREG . WOODS United States District Judge