Lopez Vs Adelanto Stadium Case Summary
I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Robert Lopez flied a claim against Adelanto Stadium, Inc. claiming negligence on fault of Defendants insufficient design and/or installation of netting protection from foul balls under California Civil Code of Procedure §1714. Compl. ¶ 3. Also, Defendant’s negligence in failure to warn of dangers of foul balls. Compl ¶ 7. Mr. Lopez alleges that Adelanto Stadium, Inc. is liable on the sole grounds that they own the stadium in which Mr. Lopez suffered said injuries. Adelanto Stadium, Inc. moves to dismiss because Mr. Lopez’s claim fails as a matter of law, since it lacks sufficient factual matter to render a finding of negligence.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On September 4, 2015, Mr. Lopez brought an action against Adelanto Stadium, Inc., who owns and maintains Adelanto Stadium, where the incident took place. Compl ¶ 13. Mr. Lopez is a season ticketholder and has attended games in the same area of the “executive club” numerous times in the past. Compl ¶ 15-17. Mr. Lopez is aware of other sections of the stadium that is protected by both vertical and horizontal safety netting and that the “executive club” is only protected by horizontal netting. Compl. ¶ 14. Mr. …show more content…
H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989). Also, a Court should not dismiss a Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6) “unless it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) . Dismissal, however, may be appropriate where the Complaint contains a detailed description of underlying facts, which fail to state a viable claim. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106-109 (1976)
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On September 4, 2015, Mr. Lopez brought an action against Adelanto Stadium, Inc., who owns and maintains Adelanto Stadium, where the incident took place. Compl ¶ 13. Mr. Lopez is a season ticketholder and has attended games in the same area of the “executive club” numerous times in the past. Compl ¶ 15-17. Mr. Lopez is aware of other sections of the stadium that is protected by both vertical and horizontal safety netting and that the “executive club” is only protected by horizontal netting. Compl. ¶ 14. Mr. …show more content…
H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989). Also, a Court should not dismiss a Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6) “unless it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) . Dismissal, however, may be appropriate where the Complaint contains a detailed description of underlying facts, which fail to state a viable claim. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106-109 (1976)