Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Inc.

Background

On June 7, 2021, Magistrate Judge Aaron granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in part and denied it in part. Judge Aaron also denied NAM and NHC’s motion to intervene. NRCM challenged the arbitration ruling, while NAM and NHC challenged the denial of intervention. Kumaran joined NRCM’s motion only to the extent it concerned her intellectual-property rights and their ownership. The opinion states that Judge Aaron’s order did not decide any issue concerning those rights.

On February 18, 2022, the district court overruled the plaintiffs’ objections to Judge Aaron’s order. On April 7, 2022, Kumaran moved for reconsideration and clarification of that February 18 order. Under Local Rule 6.3, reconsideration requires the moving party to identify matters or controlling decisions the court overlooked. The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent serious injustice.

Court’s Reasoning

The court concluded that Kumaran’s arguments were not properly before it because they exceeded the limited scope of her participation in the motions. The court said she primarily attempted to raise arguments on behalf of NRCM. It emphasized that Kumaran did not represent NRCM, which was a separate plaintiff represented by counsel and had received its own extension of time to seek reconsideration of the February 18 order. The court also stated that objections to other orders entered by Judge Aaron were untimely.

Disposition

The court denied Kumaran’s motion for reconsideration and clarification. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion listed at Dkt. No. 108. The order did not decide Kumaran’s intellectual-property rights.