This isn't quite as bad as it seems. It's as much based upon actions by ABC's lawyers as by ABC, Cuomo et al. I tried to make this easily understandable without sacrificing accuracy. Feel free to ask more questions.
Defendant ABC was sued by someone (the plaintiff) alleging that ABC committed liable.
ABC filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit before the trial based upon legal grounds only. The judges takes the facts "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party" (in this lawsuit that's the plaintiff) and applies the law to the facts. In this motion "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party" means that all facts are resolved in favor of the plaintiff.
In this case the attorneys for ABC asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit before the trial based upon Colorado law. (Each state and the Federal Government has its own set of laws.) The judge ruled that California law applied and not Colorado law. Under California law, there was a possibility that the lawsuit was viable (or good.) Since part of it was possibly viable (if you take the facts most favorable to the plaintiff) the lawsuit continues.
So what happens now? The real money gets spent while the parties try to discover what the facts are. And it could eventually go to trial and the jury decides whether it was libel or ABC et al settles the case.