Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 7, 2025

Walker v. Monica Rich Kosann

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:23-cv-04409
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Walker v. Monica Rich Kosann, Judge Subramanian adopted a recommendation granting defendants’ motions to dismiss, closed the case, and denied status to appeal without paying fees.

Who this affects

Andrew Walker, Jr.’s case was closed after the court adopted the recommendation granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court also denied Walker permission to appeal without paying filing fees; the order applies to the listed defendants through termination of the dismissal motions and closure of the case.

What happened

In Walker v. Monica Rich Kosann, the court considered a magistrate judge’s recommendation that the defendants’ motions to dismiss be granted. Plaintiff Andrew Walker, Jr. received an extension to object but filed no objections by the deadline.

The district court reviewed the complaint and the recommendation and adopted the recommendation in full. The order directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions and close the case. The opinion also noted that Federal Circuit law governs personal jurisdiction over Provenance Gems in this patent-infringement case, but said the relevant standards were virtually identical to Second Circuit standards and would produce the same result.

Judge Arun Subramanian ruled that Walker had waived objections and appellate review, adopted the recommendation, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied Walker permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Walker v. Monica Rich Kosann · No. 1:23-cv-04409
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Mar. 7, 2025

Background

The district court had referred the defendants’ motions to dismiss to Judge Willis for a Report and Recommendation, which is a magistrate judge’s proposed ruling. Judge Willis issued the recommendation on January 8, 2025, and recommended that the motions be granted.

The recommendation gave the parties 14 days to object and warned that failing to object would waive objections and prevent appellate review. Walker requested an extension through February 4, 2025, and the court granted it. No objections had been filed by the time Judge Subramanian issued this order.

Court’s Review

Because Walker filed no objections, the court held that he waived the right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review. The court nevertheless reviewed the complaint and the recommendation and found the recommendation well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.

The opinion includes a clarification concerning personal jurisdiction over Provenance Gems. Because the case involves patent-infringement claims, the court stated that Federal Circuit law governs that jurisdictional question. It also stated that the applicable Federal Circuit and Second Circuit standards are virtually identical and that the outcome would be the same under either standard.

Ruling

Judge Arun Subramanian adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, thereby granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss as recommended. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at Docket Entries 97, 98, 100, and 111, close the case, and mail Walker a copy of the order.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Walker in forma pauperis status, meaning permission to pursue an appeal without paying the required filing fees.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.