Beter v. Baughman
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-00079
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Beter v. Baughman, Judge Woods granted in part and denied in part a dismissal motion, dismissing some claims with prejudice and denying dismissal of two others.
Petra Christina Beter’s negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress, employment discrimination, and retaliation claims were dismissed with prejudice. The order denied dismissal of her intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress and Gender Motivated Violence Protection Law claims.
What happened
In Beter v. Baughman, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. No party objected to the recommendation, so the court reviewed it for clear error and found none.
The court agreed that the Adult Survivors Act meant none of Petra Christina Beter’s claims could be dismissed as too old. It nevertheless concluded that her negligent infliction of emotional distress, employment discrimination, and retaliation claims failed to state a claim.
Judge Gregory H. Woods adopted the recommendation in full and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the negligent-infliction, discrimination, and retaliation claims with prejudice, while denying dismissal of Beter’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress and Gender Motivated Violence Protection Law claims.
The detailed version
- Beter v. Baughman · No. 1:24-cv-00079
- Gregory Woods
- Sept. 20, 2024
Background
Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky issued a report and recommendation recommending that the court grant in part and deny in part Duane Baughman’s motion to dismiss Petra Christina Beter’s amended complaint. Neither party submitted an objection within the fourteen-day period. Judge Gregory H. Woods therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none, then adopted it in its entirety.
Claims and Analysis
The court agreed with the recommendation that the Adult Survivors Act prevented dismissal of Beter’s claims on the ground that they were time barred. The court nevertheless agreed that Beter’s claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and for employment discrimination and retaliation failed to state a claim.
The court also adopted the recommendation that those claims should be dismissed with prejudice because Beter had not addressed known deficiencies and further amendment would be futile. The court accepted the recommendation that Baughman’s motion to dismiss Beter’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and her claim under the Gender Motivated Violence Protection Law be denied.
Disposition
The court ordered that the motion to dismiss the amended complaint be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Beter’s negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim was dismissed with prejudice. Her discrimination and retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law were dismissed with prejudice. The order did not dismiss the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress or Gender Motivated Violence Protection Law claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.