Kumaran v. Vision Financial Markets, LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-03871
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kumaran v. Vision Financial Markets, Judge Aaron struck unauthorized pleadings and ordered a single amended complaint.
Samantha Siva Kumaran, Nefertiti Risk Capital Management, LLC, Nefertiti Asset Management, LLC, Nefertiti Holding Corporation, Inc., and the defendants were affected by filing, intervention, pleading, and scheduling directives.
What happened
In Kumaran v. Vision Financial Markets, Samantha Siva Kumaran and other proposed plaintiffs filed multiple complaints and sought to add two entities as plaintiffs. The court had previously directed Kumaran and Nefertiti Risk Capital Management, LLC, to file one second amended complaint.
The court struck the pleadings filed without permission and explained that the plaintiffs could not proceed jointly through separate complaints. It required the remaining plaintiffs and intervenors to join one complaint, while allowing Kumaran or Nefertiti Risk Capital Management to voluntarily dismiss if either wanted to proceed independently. The court also stated that the motion to intervene by Nefertiti Asset Management, LLC, and Nefertiti Holding Corporation, Inc., would be granted on consent unless they chose a separate action.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered the remaining plaintiffs to file one second amended complaint by July 30, 2021, and set deadlines for the defendants’ expected motion to dismiss or compel arbitration and the parties’ responses.
The detailed version
- Kumaran v. Vision Financial Markets, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-03871
- Gregory Woods
- Apr. 30, 2021
Background
In an earlier order, the court directed Samantha Siva Kumaran and Nefertiti Risk Capital Management, LLC (NRCM), to file a second amended complaint adding NRCM as a plaintiff. The court later extended the filing deadline to March 15, 2021.
Kumaran then filed several pleadings, including documents labeled as a second amended complaint. Brian August, an attorney, separately filed amended complaints on behalf of NRCM and Nefertiti Asset Management, LLC (NAM). Kumaran and August also filed a motion seeking permission for NAM and Nefertiti Holding Corporation, Inc. (NHC), to intervene as plaintiffs.
Order
After a telephone conference, the court ordered that Kumaran, NRCM, and NAM had not received permission to file the pleadings docketed at ECF Nos. 48, 49, 50, 55, and 56. The court struck those pleadings.
The court also ruled that the plaintiffs could not proceed jointly by filing separate complaints. All plaintiffs and intervenors were required to join one pleading, signed by each party—or by counsel when applicable—with respect to that party’s allegations.
If Kumaran or NRCM wanted to pursue the litigation independently, the relevant party had to file a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 by May 14, 2021. The court stated that NAM and NHC’s motion to intervene would be granted on consent unless they notified the court by that date that they wanted to proceed in a separate action and withdrew their motion.
Deadlines and disposition
The court ordered all remaining plaintiffs to file one second amended complaint by July 30,
- The complaint had to comply with Rule 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. The defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and/or compel arbitration was due September 17, 2021; plaintiffs’ opposition was due October 19, 2021; and any reply was due November 19,
- The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No.
- Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered the order on April 30, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.