Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-03873
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Judge Woods denied plaintiffs’ motion for interlocutory appeal certification without prejudice.
The plaintiffs, including NRCM and Ms. Kumaran, whose request to seek an immediate appeal was denied without prejudice; ADM Investor Services, Inc., which may oppose any renewed motion.
What happened
In Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Inc., plaintiffs asked the court to certify an earlier order for an immediate appeal. That earlier order had partly granted and partly denied ADM’s motion to compel arbitration, and the court had overruled objections to it.
Plaintiffs identified several legal questions but did not clearly explain how the earlier order resolved them. The court found their arguments sprawling and largely unclear, and said it lacked enough information to decide whether the requirements for an immediate appeal were met.
Judge Woods denied the motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal without prejudice. The court set a June 16, 2022 deadline for any renewed motion and directed plaintiffs’ counsel to submit an affidavit confirming that he drafted it.
The detailed version
- Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03873
- Gregory Woods
- June 9, 2022
Background
On June 7, 2021, Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued an order partly granting and partly denying ADM Investor Services, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration. NRCM challenged that order. After a February 18, 2022 conference, Judge Woods overruled the objections and issued an order to that effect. The plaintiffs then moved for certification of an interlocutory appeal from the February 18 order.
Legal standard
An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before final judgment. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district court may certify an order for such an appeal when the order involves a controlling legal question, there is substantial disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the case. The moving party must establish all three requirements. The court noted that interlocutory appeals are generally disfavored.
The parties’ arguments and the court’s analysis
Plaintiffs identified multiple legal questions, including questions concerning 7 U.S.C. § 25(b), but did not explain how Judge Woods’s February 18 order resolved those questions. At a June 2, 2022 conference, the court asked plaintiffs’ counsel to clarify the issue, but he was unable to do so. The court also referred to earlier briefing concerning § 25(b) as poorly drafted and unclear, and noted that former counsel had said Ms. Kumaran prepared the briefs.
The court found that the current motion continued the same pattern: plaintiffs’ arguments were sprawling and largely incoherent, and neither prior counsel nor current counsel could clarify them when questioned. The court therefore said it did not have enough information to determine whether the February 18 order involved any of the legal questions identified in the motion.
Ruling
Judge Woods denied plaintiffs’ motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal without prejudice. The court said a renewed motion could be filed by June 16, 2022, and requested that Mr. Kostus explain how the prior order involved the proposed controlling legal questions and provide full briefing on any nonfrivolous arguments. The court also directed Mr. Kostus to submit an affidavit stating that he drafted the renewed motion. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 119.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.