Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 30, 2025

Kosh v. Quinn

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:25-cv-04603
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Kosh v. Quinn, Judge Oetken adopted a recommendation ordering Caroline Kosh to amend her complaint within 30 days or face dismissal.

Who this affects

Caroline Kosh must file an amended complaint within 30 days if she can address the problems identified in the magistrate judge’s recommendation; otherwise, the case will be dismissed. Brian Michael Quinn and Salvatore E.A. Vulcano remain defendants.

What happened

Caroline Kosh sued Brian Michael Quinn and Salvatore E.A. Vulcano for “theft by deception.” A magistrate judge recommended that Kosh file an amended complaint.

No party timely objected to that recommendation. Judge Oetken therefore reviewed it for obvious error and found none.

In Kosh v. Quinn, Judge Oetken adopted the recommendation and ordered Kosh to file an amended complaint within 30 days if she could address the identified problems. The court stated that the case will be dismissed if she does not do so.

The detailed version

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

Case
Kosh v. Quinn · No. 1:25-cv-04603
Judge
James Oetken
Date
July 30, 2025

Background

Caroline Kosh brought this action against Brian Michael Quinn and Salvatore E.A. Vulcano, alleging “theft by deception.” The court had referred the case to Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky for general pretrial purposes.

Recommendation and Review

Judge Tarnofsky issued a Report and Recommendation advising that Kosh be ordered to file an amended complaint. No party filed a timely objection. Because there was no timely objection, Judge Oetken reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. He found no error and fully adopted the recommendation.

Order

The court ordered Kosh to submit an amended complaint within 30 days of the order if she could address the problems identified in the recommendation. The court stated that the case will be dismissed if she does not do so. The order did not decide whether the alleged “theft by deception” occurred or whether Kosh ultimately would prevail. The clerk was directed to mail Kosh a copy of the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.