Saadeh v. Kagan
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-01945
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Saadeh v. Kagan, Judge Engelmayer adopted a recommendation and granted in part and denied in part Joshua Kagan’s motion to dismiss.
Rafic Saadeh and defendant Joshua Kagan; the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, but the opinion does not specify the claims affected by each portion.
What happened
Saadeh v. Kagan involved Joshua Kagan’s motion to dismiss Rafiс Saadeh’s Second Amended Complaint. The opinion did not repeat the underlying facts, instead incorporating a magistrate judge’s earlier summary.
No party objected to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, so the court reviewed it for clear error. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full.
Judge Paul Engelmayer granted in part and denied in part Joshua Kagan’s motion to dismiss. The opinion does not specify which claims were affected by each part of the ruling.
The detailed version
- Saadeh v. Kagan · No. 1:20-cv-01945
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 3, 2022
Background
The pending matter was defendant Joshua Kagan’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The court considered an October 20, 2021 Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, which recommended granting in part and denying in part the motion. The court incorporated the report’s summary of the facts rather than restating those facts in this opinion.
Court’s Review
Because no party objected to the Report and Recommendation, the court reviewed the unchallenged recommendation for clear error—a review asking whether an obvious mistake appears on the face of the record. The court found no such error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review, consistent with the warning in the report.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 87. The opinion does not identify which claims or arguments corresponded to the granted and denied portions of the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.