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.