Borah v. Continental Casualty Company
Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C. v. Continental Casualty Company
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-01788
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel v. Continental Casualty, Judge Liman granted Continental’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C. and Continental Casualty Company; the plaintiff’s case was dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C. v. Continental Casualty Company, the court granted Continental Casualty Company’s motion to dismiss.
The judgment states that the plaintiff identified no facts it could allege that would support coverage under the policy. The court therefore dismissed the case with prejudice.
The judgment was based on the court’s February 16, 2023 Opinion and Order and was entered on February 21, 2023. Judge Liman is identified as the judge in the case information provided.
The detailed version
- Borah v. Continental Casualty Company · No. 1:22-cv-01788
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 21, 2023
Ruling
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s February 16, 2023 Opinion and Order, the motion to dismiss was granted. A motion to dismiss asks the court to end a case because the complaint does not support a legally viable claim under the applicable pleading rules.
The court stated that the plaintiff had identified no facts it could allege that would support coverage under the policy. It therefore ordered that the dismissal was with prejudice, meaning the dismissal bars refiling the dismissed claims based on the same matter. The judgment cites two decisions that dismissed similar complaints with prejudice.
Disposition
The motion to dismiss was granted, and the case was dismissed with prejudice. The provided text is the judgment and refers to, but does not include, the court’s February 16, 2023 Opinion and Order; the detailed reasoning beyond the stated lack of facts supporting policy coverage is therefore not available here.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.