Summary
The court partially granted and partially denied Nidec Motor Corporation’s motion to dismiss an elevator-injury negligence action. The court dismissed Motion Control Engineering because the parties agreed it was not a proper defendant, but held that the complaint plausibly alleged duty, breach, causation, and damages against Nidec.
Holdings
- The complaint plausibly stated an Illinois negligence claim against Nidec because it alleged Nidec's responsibility for installing or maintaining the elevators, facts suggesting breach of its duty of care, a reasonable inference of proximate causation, and resulting injuries and damages.
- Motion Control Engineering was dismissed from the case because the parties agreed that it was not a proper party and could not be sued.
Questions Presented
- Whether Howard's complaint stated a plausible Illinois negligence claim against Nidec under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Whether Motion Control Engineering, which the parties agreed had been dissolved and could not be sued, should be dismissed from the action.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 507 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 2007)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)(followed)
- Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 728 (7th Cir. 2014)(followed)
- Greenhill v. REIT Mgmt. & Rsch., LLC, 156 N.E.3d 1, 11, 13-14, 18 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)(followed)
- Appvion, Inc. v. Richards, No. 18-C-1861, 2025 WL 346736, at *4 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 30, 2025)(followed)
- Thomas v. JBS Green Bay, Inc., 120 F.4th 1335, 1337-38 (7th Cir. 2024)(followed)
- Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2010)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…