Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-03873
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Judge Woods overruled objections to an amended-complaint deadline and denied Kumaran’s request to appeal without prepaying fees.
Samantha Siva Kumaran, whose objections were overruled and whose ability to appeal without prepaying fees was denied; the amended-complaint deadline remained July 7, 2025.
What happened
Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Inc. concerns Samantha Siva Kumaran’s objections to a magistrate judge’s order setting July 7, 2025, as the deadline for her amended complaint. The magistrate judge had granted in part her request for more time regarding her individual claims against ADM Investor Services, Inc.
The district court reviewed the order under a standard that required a clear mistake or a decision contrary to law. It found no such error and rejected Kumaran’s argument that she could not prepare an amended pleading after more than five years of litigation.
Judge Gregory H. Woods overruled Kumaran’s objections. He also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
The detailed version
- Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03873
- Gregory Woods
- June 28, 2025
Background
The case had been pending for more than five years. On May 21, 2025, Judge Aaron ordered that Kumaran could file an amended pleading by June 20, 2025. On June 10, Kumaran requested more time. On June 13, Judge Aaron granted that request in part, extending the deadline for Kumaran’s amended complaint concerning her individual claims against ADM Investor Services, Inc. to July 7, 2025.
Kumaran objected to the June 13 order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Her objections challenged parts of the order’s procedural history and the decision to set July 7 as the filing deadline. The opinion also recounts that Kumaran had filed several motions and objections concerning a requested stay of the action; those earlier requests had been denied or overruled.
Standard of Review
For objections to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order, the district judge must change or set aside the order if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court applied that standard to Judge Aaron’s June 13 order.
Ruling
The court found no clear error and no decision contrary to law. It was not persuaded that Kumaran could not file an amended pleading after having more than a month and a half to do so, particularly because she had used that period to file motions, supporting briefs, and objections. The court concluded that setting a July 7 deadline after granting a 17-day extension was lawful.
Judge Woods overruled Kumaran’s objections at Docket No. 382. 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 and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.