Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America v. Blizzard Busters Snowplowing…
Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America v. Blizzard Busters Snowplowing Corp.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:21-cv-08220
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Travelers v. Blizzard Busters, Judge Karas granted Travelers’ motion to dismiss, dismissed Defendants’ claims with prejudice, and closed the case.
Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America and the defendants—Blizzard Busters Snowplowing Corp., Blizzard Busters Snowplowing, Inc., Blizzard Busters, Corp., Blizzard Busters Landscaping & Snowplowing, Norma Reid-Lynch, and Costco Wholesale Corporation—were affected. The defendants’ claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America v. Blizzard Busters Snowplowing Corp., the court entered judgment granting Travelers’ motion to dismiss. The judgment concerns counterclaims that a defendant had already amended once after the court identified deficiencies.
The court stated that allowing another amendment would give the defendant a “third bite at the apple.” It therefore dismissed the defendants’ claims with prejudice, meaning the claims cannot be brought again in that case, and stated that the case was closed.
Judge Kenneth Karas is identified as the judge in the case information supplied with the opinion. The judgment was dated December 12, 2023.
The detailed version
- Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America v. Blizzard Busters Snowplowing… · No. 7:21-cv-08220
- Kenneth Karas
- Dec. 12, 2023
Ruling
The court entered a judgment granting Plaintiff Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America’s motion to dismiss. The judgment states that the dismissal was based on the reasons given in the court’s Opinion and Order dated December 11, 2023.
Counterclaims and Amendment
The judgment states that a defendant had already amended its counterclaims once after the court had placed it on notice of deficiencies in those counterclaims. The court declined to allow another amendment, describing that request as a “third bite at the apple” and citing decisions stating that courts may deny a further amendment when a party has already had an opportunity to correct identified defects.
Disposition
The judgment states: “Defendants claims are therefore dismissed with prejudice; accordingly, the case is closed.” Thus, the defendants’ claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed. The judgment does not explain in detail the underlying legal basis of the counterclaims or the specific deficiencies identified in them.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.