Edwards v. Regis Corp et al

Filing 12

ORDER granting 10 Wal-mart's Motion to Dismiss. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is terminated as a party from this case. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/27/2010. (RK, ilcd)

Tuesday, 27 April, 2010 12:01:42 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CAROL EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. REGIS CORP., a foreign corporation, and WAL-MART STORES, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

E-FILED

Case No. 10-1011

ORDER Now before the Court is Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s ("Wal-Mart") Federal Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, Wal-Mart's Motion [#10] is GRANTED. On January 15, 2010, Plaintiff Carol Edwards ("Edwards") filed a Complaint against Wal-Mart and Regis Corp. ("Regis"), alleging negligence against both Wal-Mart and Regis. She alleges that she incurred injuries as a result of falling from a chair at the SmartStyle salon1 located within the Wal-Mart at 8915 North Allen Road, Peoria, Illinois. On March 19, 2010, Wal-Mart filed its Motion to Dismiss, arguing that pursuant to the express terms of the Lease Agreement controlling Regis' use of the leased space within the Allen Road Wal-Mart, WalMart took no part in either the maintenance or repair of the chair within the Regis beauty salon that is the subject of this litigation. Wal-Mart attached the August 11, 1999, Lease Agreement entered into by Wal-Mart and Regis, which provided that Regis was solely responsible for the

1

Regis' salon is known as SmartStyle.

maintenance and repair of the demised premises,2 and which was in full force and effect at all times relevant to the allegations contained in Edwards' Complaint. Wal-Mart further argues that given Edwards' allegation of Wal-Mart's failure to exercise due care to ensure the chair was in a reasonably safe condition, and given the terms of the Lease Agreement, Wal-Mart should be dismissed from the case. Edwards filed her Response to Wal-Mart's Motion to Dismiss, stating that on the basis of the information contained in the Motion and its attached Exhibits A (Plaintiff's Complaint) and B (Wal-Mart Shopping Center Lease Agreement), she offered no objection to Wal-Mart's Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, Wal-Mart's Federal Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [#10] is GRANTED, as Plaintiff Edwards does not oppose the motion. Wal-Mart is TERMINATED as a party from this case. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2010.

s/Michael M. Mihm Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge

"Demised Premises" is defined in the parties' Lease Agreement as "Located in WALMART SUPERCENTERS with store numbers, addresses and square footages as outlined in Exhibit D attached hereto." See Dft's Motion to Dismiss Exh. B.

2