Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
San Diego
Walnut Creek
Phoenix
Reno
Denver
North San Diego
Dallas
(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 2525 West Frye Rd Suite 200 Chandler, AZ 85224
(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

BWB&O’s Arizona Team Prevails on a Motion to Dismiss!

Congratulations to Arizona Partner John Belanger and Associate Ryan Leibel on their recent success extricating a large warehouse retail client via Motion to Dismiss.

This case arose from an alleged incident that occurred on the premises of BWB&O’s client.  Plaintiff alleged that, while inside the warehouse, she suffered serious injuries after another customer struck Plaintiff with a shopping cart.  Plaintiff asserted a negligence claim against BWB&O’s client, alleging that BWB&O’s client overloaded the subject shopping cart which, in turn, created an unreasonably dangerous condition.  Plaintiff also alleged that BWB&O’s client failed to implement proper social distancing protocols as required by multiple statewide Executive Orders in effect at the time.

John and Ryan filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims against BWB&O’s client, arguing Plaintiff named BWB&O’s client outside the applicable limitations period, and Plaintiff could not satisfy the requisite elements for application of the relation-back doctrine.  As to the merits, John and Ryan argued that, absent a special relationship, BWB&O’s client did not owe a duty to control the acts of a third-party.  John and Ryan also argued that the subject Executive Orders (implemented to curb the spread of Covid-19) did not create a private right of action.  The Court agreed with John and Ryan on all three arguments and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against BWB&O’s client, with prejudice.

Congratulations to John and Ryan on an incredible outcome!