100 Orchard Street, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Company of America
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-08452
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In 100 Orchard Street v. Travelers, Judge Furman granted Travelers’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the amended complaint, and declined further amendment.
100 Orchard Street, LLC’s amended complaint was dismissed in its entirety. The Travelers Indemnity Insurance Company of America received judgment in its favor, and the case was closed.
What happened
100 Orchard Street, LLC sued The Travelers Indemnity Insurance Company of America. The judgment says Travelers moved to dismiss Orchard Street’s amended complaint.
The court granted Travelers’ motion and dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. It also declined to grant Orchard Street permission to amend again, stating that the problems were substantive, Orchard Street had not requested amendment, and the court had previously warned that there would be no further opportunity to amend.
Judge Jesse Furman’s court entered judgment for Travelers and closed the case on June 9, 2021.
The detailed version
- 100 Orchard Street, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Company of America · No. 1:20-cv-08452
- Jesse Furman
- June 9, 2021
Background
100 Orchard Street, LLC brought the case against The Travelers Indemnity Insurance Company of America. The judgment refers to Orchard Street’s amended complaint and Travelers’ motion to dismiss. The judgment itself does not describe the underlying claims or the specific reasons for dismissal; it incorporates the reasons stated in the court’s memorandum opinion and order dated June 8, 2021.
Ruling
The court granted Travelers’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Orchard Street’s amended complaint in its entirety. The court also declined to grant Orchard Street permission to amend the amended complaint again without a separate request. It stated that the problems with Orchard Street’s claims were substantive and that amendment would be futile. The court further noted that Orchard Street had not requested permission to amend or identified facts that would cure the problems, and that the court had previously allowed amendment and warned that there would be no further opportunity to amend to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss.
Disposition
Judgment was entered for Travelers, and the case was closed. The judgment does not use the terms “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.”
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.