Kerim v. ABM Industries, Inc.
- Garnett
- 1:24-cv-05599
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Kerim v. ABM Industries, Judge Garnett adopted a recommendation, granted amendment, and denied three defense motions as moot.
Sevginar Kerim and the defendants in the case, including ABM Industries; the three pending defense motions were denied as moot and terminated, while Kerim's request to file a Second Amended Complaint was granted under the adopted recommendation.
What happened
Sevginar Kerim sued ABM Industries and other defendants. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo, who was asked to handle pretrial matters and make recommendations on motions that could end the case.
The defendants filed three motions seeking to compel arbitration and/or dismiss the case. Before responding to those motions, Kerim asked to file a Second Amended Complaint. Judge Ricardo recommended granting that request and denying the three other motions as moot because the amended complaint had been filed.
No party objected to the recommendation, and Judge Margaret M. Garnett found no obvious error in it. Judge Garnett adopted the recommendation in full, and the court denied the three pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to terminate them.
The detailed version
- Kerim v. ABM Industries, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-05599
- Garnett
- Aug. 6, 2025
Background
On December 9, 2024, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo for general pretrial matters and for a report and recommendation on motions that could dispose of the case. On February 21, 2025, the defendants filed motions to compel arbitration and/or dismiss the case at Dkt. Nos. 49, 55, and 56.
Before Kerim's deadline to respond to those motions, she requested permission to file a Second Amended Complaint. After a conference with the parties, Judge Ricardo issued a Report and Recommendation on April 28, 2025. The recommendation granted Kerim's request to amend and recommended denying the three other motions as moot because the Second Amended Complaint had been filed.
Court's Analysis
The parties were notified that objections to the recommendation had to be filed within 14 days. No objections were filed. Judge Garnett stated that, when timely objections are absent, the court may adopt the recommendation if the record does not show clear error. She reviewed the record and found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Margaret M. Garnett adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court denied the motions at Dkt. Nos. 49, 55, and 56 as moot and directed the clerk to terminate those motions. The order did not decide whether arbitration was required or whether the claims should be dismissed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.