Petry v. AAM Holding Corp.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-03110
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Petry v. AAM Holding Corp.: Judge Woods compelled arbitration, denied severance, stayed the case, and denied other motions without prejudice.
The plaintiffs, including Camila Roncatto Petry, Marmolejo, and Tanaka, and the defendants were affected. The plaintiffs’ claims were sent to arbitration, the case was stayed, and the class and collective allegations and the requests to dismiss Marmolejo and Tanaka remained unresolved because those motions were denied without prejudice.
What happened
In Petry v. AAM Holding Corp., a magistrate judge recommended compelling arbitration, denying the plaintiffs’ request to remove a cost-sharing requirement, staying the case, and denying without prejudice motions targeting the class and collective allegations and two plaintiffs.
No party objected to the recommendation within the required fourteen-day period. The district court reviewed it for clear error and found none, then adopted it in full.
Judge Woods granted the motion to compel arbitration, denied the request to sever the cost-sharing requirement, stayed the case pending arbitration, and denied without prejudice the motions to strike the class and collective allegations and to dismiss Marmolejo and Tanaka.
The detailed version
- Petry v. AAM Holding Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-03110
- Gregory Woods
- Apr. 22, 2025
Background
On April 3, 2025, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued a report and recommendation addressing defendants’ motions. The recommendation advised the district court to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims, deny the plaintiffs’ request to sever the cost-sharing requirement from the arbitration agreement, stay the action pending arbitration, and deny without prejudice defendants’ motions to strike the class and collective allegations from the First Amended Complaint and to dismiss plaintiffs Marmolejo and Tanaka from the case.
Review of the Recommendation
The parties did not submit objections within the fourteen-day period. Judge Woods therefore reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error and found none. The court accepted and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.
Rulings
The court stated that defendants’ motions to compel arbitration, strike the class and collective allegations, and dismiss Marmolejo and Tanaka were granted in part. Specifically, the motion to compel arbitration was granted, and the plaintiffs’ request to sever the cost-sharing requirement was denied. The action was stayed pending arbitration. The motions to strike the class and collective allegations and to dismiss Marmolejo and Tanaka were denied without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 87 and indicate the stay on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.