Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
San Diego
Walnut Creek
North San Diego
(949)221-1000 (949)221-1001 20320 S.W. Birch Street Second Floor, Newport Beach CA 92660
(818)712-9800 (818)712-9900 21215 Burbank Blvd. Suite 500, Woodland Hills CA 91367
(702)258-6665 (702)258-6662 1160 N Town Center Dr Suite 250, Las Vegas NV 89144
(619)236-0048 (619)236-0047 501 West Broadway Suite 1700, San Diego CA 92101
(510)540-4881 (510)540-4889 2033 N. Main St. Suite 600, Walnut Creek, Ca 94596
(602)274-1204 (602)274-1205 8950 South 52nd St Suite 201, Tempe AZ 85284
(775)440-2389 (775) 440-2390 50 West Liberty Suite 1090, Reno NV 89501
(720) 779-2500 (303)256-6205 1999 Broadway, Suite 3250, Denver, Colorado 80202
(760)557-2940 (619)389-2993 760 Garden View Ct. Unit #220 Encinitas, CA 92024
(949) 221-1000 (949) 221-1001 1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2000 Dallas, Texas 75201

Arizona Partner John Belanger and Associate Ryan Leibel Obtain a Dismissal in a Personal Injury Suit!

Please join us in congratulating Arizona Partner John Belanger and Associate Ryan Leibel on obtaining a dismissal for their client in a personal injury suit.

This case stemmed from a fall suffered by Plaintiff on the premises of BWB&O’s client, a large wholesale retailer. Specifically, while inside a warehouse owned by BWB&O’s client, Plaintiff suffered a serious fall after two children inexplicably and without warning dove onto the ground in front of Plaintiff’s walking path. Plaintiff sued BWB&O’s client for negligence under a theory of premises liability, alleging that the behavior of said children amounted to an unreasonably dangerous condition on the premises of BWB&O’s client, for which BWB&O’s client had a duty to discover and remedy. John and Ryan filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims against BWB&O’s client arguing that, absent a special relationship, BWB&O’s client did not owe a duty to control the children of a third-party. John and Ryan also argued that, even if a duty was owed, the Complaint was devoid of well-pled factual allegations that BWB&O’s client had actual or constructive notice of the children’s behavior. The Court agreed on both arguments and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against BWB&O’s client.

Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Leave to amend the Complaint. John and Ryan opposed Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave, arguing that Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint would be futile. More specifically, John and Ryan argued that Plaintiff’s proposed amendments, which were littered with unsupported and conclusory factual allegations, illustrated a far-reaching and improper attempt to render Plaintiff’s claims safe from further motion practice. Again, the Court agreed and denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave, which, in effect, dismissed BWB&O’s client from the case with prejudice.