JORDAN ALAN, Plaintiff vs. LA FITNESS, ET AL., Defendants
CASE NO: BC588038
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1. Background Facts Plaintiff, Jordan Alan filed this action against Defendant, Fitness International, LLC for damages arising out of an incident that occurred while Plaintiff was playing racquetball; Plaintiff slammed into the glass door of the court, which broke and caused him to sustain injuries. Plaintiff added Street Retail West 7, L.P. and Street Retail West GP, Inc. as doe defendants in the action. 2. Grounds for Motion At this time, the Street Retail defendants move for summary judgment, contending (a) Plaintiff’s entire complaint is barred by the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, (b) Defendants cannot be held liable for products liability because they did not provide a product to Plaintiff, and they were not in the chain of distribution, and (c) Defendants were out of possession and had no legal right to control the property where Plaintif
Hearing Date
June 01, 2017
Type
Premises Liablty (e.g. slip & fall (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
JORDAN ALAN, Plaintiff vs. LA FITNESS, ET AL., Defendants
CASE NO: BC588038
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1. Background Facts Plaintiff, Jordan Alan filed this action against Defendant, Fitness International, LLC for damages arising out of an incident that occurred while Plaintiff was playing racquetball; Plaintiff slammed into the glass door of the court, which broke and caused him to sustain injuries. Plaintiff added Street Retail West 7, L.P. and Street Retail West GP, Inc. as doe defendants in the action. 2. Grounds for Motion At this time, the Street Retail defendants move for summary judgment, contending (a) Plaintiff’s entire complaint is barred by the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, (b) Defendants cannot be held liable for products liability because they did not provide a product to Plaintiff, and they were not in the chain of distribution, and (c) Defendants were out of possession and had no legal right to control the property where Plaintif