Ahmad v. Mahran

Filing 76

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 69 ; granting in part and denying in part 21 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 26 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Case is referred back to Magistrate Judge McCarthy for further proceedings. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 3/31/2009. (JMB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

S A M E E R A AHMAD, Plaintiff, v. ORDER 06-CV-339

KHALID S. MAHRAN, and K ID N E Y CARE, P.C., D e fe n d a n ts .

T h is case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), on March 9, 2009. On December 21, 2007, defendants file d a motion for summary judgment and plaintiff filed a motion for partial s u m m a ry judgment that same date. On January 5, 2009, Magistrate Judge M c C a r th y filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that defendants' m o tio n be granted to the extent of dismissing plaintiff's second cause of action, b u t otherwise be denied and that plaintiff's motion be granted to the extent of (1) d e c la rin g that the date for commencement of employment under the contract was n o later than November 14, 2005, and (2) dismissing defendants' first and third c o u n te rc la im s , but otherwise be denied.

D e fe n d a n t s filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on March 9 , 2009, and plaintiff filed a response on March 23, 2009.1 Oral argument on the o b je c tio n s was held on February 23, 2009. P u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo d e te r m in a tio n of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which o b je c tio n s have been made. Upon a de novo review of the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , and after reviewing the submissions and hearing argument fro m the parties, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and R e c o m m e n d a t io n . Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy's R e p o rt and Recommendation, defendants' motion is granted to the extent of d is m is s in g plaintiff's second cause of action, but otherwise is denied. Plaintiff's m o tio n is granted to the extent of (1) declaring that the date for commencement of e m p lo ym e n t under the contract was no later than November 14, 2005, and (2) d is m is s in g defendants' first and third counterclaims, but otherwise is denied.

T h e case is referred back to Magistrate Judge McCarthy for further proceedings.

Objection and response papers were filed initially in January 2009. The Court gave the p a r tie s an opportunity to resubm it their papers, out of concern that certain exhibits m a y not have been m a d e a v a ila b le to defendants' new counsel.

1

2

SO ORDERED. s/ Richard J. Arcara HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATED: March 31 , 2009

3