Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-03873
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Inc., Judge Woods overruled Kumaran’s objections to a stay-related order and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
The order primarily affects Samantha Siva Kumaran: her objections were overruled, and her request to proceed without paying appeal fees was denied. The opinion does not describe a separate ruling affecting ADM Investor Services, Inc.
What happened
In Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Inc., Judge Aaron set a deadline for Samantha Siva Kumaran to file an amended pleading and denied her permission to seek a stay of the case. Kumaran later filed objections to that decision and filed another motion to stay.
The court reviewed the objections under the standard for challenging a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order. That standard requires changing the order only if it is clearly wrong or contrary to law. The court found no such error.
Judge Woods overruled Kumaran’s objections. He also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied her fee-waiver status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03873
- Gregory Woods
- June 19, 2025
Background
On May 21, 2025, Judge Aaron held a conference and set a deadline for Ms. Kumaran to file an amended pleading. During that conference, Judge Aaron also denied Ms. Kumaran permission to file a motion to stay the case. The court noted that Judge Aaron had previously denied a stay of the action as to Ms. Kumaran’s claims in a May 1, 2025 order, and that Ms. Kumaran did not object to that earlier order.
Ms. Kumaran filed a motion to stay on June 4,
- The court denied that motion as improperly filed on June 5,
- She filed another motion to stay on June 6,
- She also filed objections to Judge Aaron’s May 21 order denying her permission to file a motion to stay.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district judge reviews objections to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order to determine whether the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A clearly erroneous decision is one the reviewing court finds clearly wrong; a decision contrary to law applies the law incorrectly.
Ruling
The court reviewed Judge Aaron’s May 21, 2025 order under that standard and found no clear error or decision contrary to law. The court therefore overruled Ms. Kumaran’s objections.
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 denied in forma pauperis status, meaning permission to proceed without paying the usual court fees, for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.