Taylor v. A&H Security Services
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:25-cv-07180
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Taylor v. A&H Security Services, Judge Caproni adopted the report, denied remand, granted dismissal, and allowed amendment only for contract and retaliation claims.
Kareem B. Taylor and A&H Security Services, LLC. Taylor’s case could proceed only through a timely Third Amended Complaint limited to the breach-of-contract and retaliation claims.
What happened
In Taylor v. A&H Security Services, Kareem B. Taylor’s employment-termination complaint was sent to federal court, and he later filed two amended complaints. The court considered his request to send the case back and the company’s request to dismiss the claims.
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full. It denied Taylor’s request to send the case back and granted the company’s dismissal request. The negligence claim, wrongful-termination claims, and claims in Counts V and VI were dismissed without permission to amend. The breach-of-contract and retaliation claims were dismissed with permission to amend by August 17, 2026.
Judge Valerie Caproni ruled that no party had objected to the report and recommendation and that the report contained no clear error. The court also stated that failing to object waived further appellate review of the decision.
The detailed version
- Taylor v. A&H Security Services · No. 1:25-cv-07180
- Valerie Caproni
- July 15, 2026
Background
Kareem B. Taylor’s complaint, arising from the termination of his employment at A&H Security Services, LLC, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Taylor filed a First Amended Complaint and then a Second Amended Complaint. He filed a motion to remand, which asked the court to send the case back, and A&H filed a motion to dismiss. The court referred both motions to Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo for a report and recommendation.
Report and Recommendation
Judge Figueredo recommended denying Taylor’s motion to remand and granting A&H’s motion to dismiss with limited permission to amend. The report told the parties that they had 14 days to file written objections and that failing to object could prevent appellate review.
No party filed an objection. Judge Caproni therefore reviewed the report for clear error—the kind of error that would leave the court firmly convinced that a mistake had been made—and found none.
Ruling
The court adopted the report and recommendation in full. Taylor’s motion to remand was DENIED, and A&H’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED.
The court ordered that the dismissal of Taylor’s negligence claim, identified as Count VII, his wrongful-termination claims, identified in the opinion as Counts I-IT, and the claims in Counts V and VI was without leave to amend. The court dismissed Taylor’s breach-of-contract claim, Count IV, and retaliation claim, identified in the opinion as Count IID, with leave to amend. Any Third Amended Complaint could include only the breach-of-contract and retaliation claims and had to be filed by August 17, 2026.
Because no party objected after receiving the required warning, the court stated that further appellate review of the decision was waived. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions listed at Dockets 7, 13, and 40.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.