Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 23, 2020

Kumaran v. National Futures Association

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:20-cv-03668
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Kumaran v. National Futures Association, Judge Woods granted reconsideration in part, allowing amendments to some claims and denying it for others.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs’ ability to amend their Commodity Exchange Act Section 22(b), injunctive-relief, and state-law claims was allowed, while reconsideration was denied as to their other claims.

What happened

In Kumaran v. National Futures Association, the plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider an earlier ruling. A magistrate judge recommended granting reconsideration for the plaintiffs’ Commodity Exchange Act Section 22(b) claim, requests for court orders requiring action, and state-law claims, while denying it for the other claims.

No one objected to the recommendation by the October 20, 2020 deadline. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for obvious error and found none.

Judge Gregory H. Woods adopted the recommendation in full. He granted the plaintiffs’ reconsideration motion in part, gave them permission to amend the specified claims, and denied the motion as to the other claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Kumaran v. National Futures Association · No. 1:20-cv-03668
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Oct. 23, 2020

Background

The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to reconsider an earlier ruling. On October 6, 2020, Magistrate Judge Aaron issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion be granted as to the plaintiffs’ Commodity Exchange Act Section 22(b) claim, claims seeking injunctive relief, and state-law claims. The recommendation advised denying reconsideration as to the plaintiffs’ other claims.

Review of the Recommendation

The district court stated that timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation require fresh review of the challenged portions. When no objections are made, the district court may adopt the unchallenged portions unless the record shows clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. Because the court received no objections by October 20, 2020, it reviewed the entire recommendation for clear error and found none.

Ruling

Judge Gregory H. Woods accepted and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was GRANTED IN PART. The plaintiffs were given leave to amend their Commodity Exchange Act Section 22(b) claim, claims for injunctive relief, and state-law claims. The motion was DENIED as to the plaintiffs’ other claims. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at Docket Number 17.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.