Williams v. Shop 'N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., et al

Filing 8

ORDER GRANTING Defendant Supervalu, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4 ). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 11/27/2017. (njh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JANET WILLIAMS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
SHOP ‘N SAVE WAREHOUSE FOODS,
INC. and SUPERVALU, INC.,
Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-702-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Supervalu Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4).
Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s motion. For the following reasons, the motion is
GRANTED.
Background
On or about May 23, 2015, Plaintiff was shopping at Defendant Shop ‘n Save’s 800
Carlyle Avenue location. While shopping, Plaintiff allegedly slipped, tripped or was otherwise
caused to fall. Plaintiff claims that she sustained serious and permanent injuries as a result.
Plaintiff asserts that as a direct and proximate result of the negligent, careless and reckless acts of
Defendant Shop ‘n Save, she sustained an injury to her left ankle, an injury to her left and right
shoulder, an injury to her lumbar spine and that other areas that were impacted by the fall.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit again Shop ‘n Save and Supervalu, Inc. The Shop ‘n Save
store where Plaintiff allegedly fell is operated by Shop ‘n Save Warehouse Foods, Inc, which is a
subsidiary of Supervalu, Inc.
Discussion
When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for failure to state a claim, the Court accepts as true all facts alleged in the Complaint

1

and construes all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667,
670 (7th Cir. 2006). To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a Complaint must
contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Detailed factual allegations” are not required, but the plaintiff must
allege facts that when “accepted as true ... state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not set forth facts sufficient to support her claims for
relief. Additionally, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s claim fails because she has not made
any allegations directed to piercing the corporate veil, so as to impose liability on Supervalu, Inc.
for the actions of employees of Shop ‘n Save and that Plaintiff has alleged no basis to disregard
the separate corporate status of Supervalu, Inc. and impose liability on it for the alleged
negligence of employees of Shop ‘n Save Warehouse Foods, Inc.
The Court may in its discretion construe a party’s failure to file a response as an
admission of the merits of the motion. See Local Rule 7.1(c) (stating a failure to respond may be
deemed an admission of the merits of the motion); see also Tobel v. City of Hammond, 94 F.3d
360, 362 (7th Cir.1996) (“[T]he district court clearly has authority to enforce strictly its Local
Rules, even if a default results.”). Given the nature of the assertions an arguments set forth in
Defendant’s motion, the Court opts to exercise its discretion and construes Plaintiff’s failure to
challenge Defendant’s motion as an admission of the merits.
GRANTED.

2

Accordingly, the motion is

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Supervalu Inc. be DISMISSED from
this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATED Supervalu,
Inc. as a defendant.
DATED: November 27, 2017
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

3