The suit arose from an alleged fall by the plaintiff, a store patron, inside one of the client’s Massachusetts locations. Although the complaint initially identified the wrong store location, discovery established that the alleged fall occurred at another Massachusetts store. The plaintiff pursued a claim of negligence, asserting that GRSM’s client failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. According to the plaintiff, a purported defect in the tile flooring, described as a “dry spot”, caused her foot to stop and led to the fall. No visible condition was identified in the area where the incident allegedly occurred, and there was no incident report or surveillance footage documenting the event. The plaintiff denied observing any defect with the floor that caused or contributed to her fall.

In a lengthy memorandum, the court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of any defect or dangerous condition on the sales floor. The court further rejected as speculative the theory that routine cleaning or buffing might have altered floor traction, noting the absence of photographs, expert testimony, or other corroborating proof.

The court also rejected the plaintiff’s spoliation claim tied to an alleged failure to preserve surveillance footage. The record contained no evidence that any video of the incident ever existed, and the client had no duty to preserve footage where it did not receive notice of a potential claim until after its standard video retention period had expired.

More than a year after the deadline for amendments, the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint. The court denied this motion as untimely and further found the proposed amendment futile because it did not cure the evidentiary defects fatal to the plaintiff’s claim.

The court’s summary judgment ruling resolves the case in full, eliminating the need for trial in a matter pending for more than two years and sparing GRSM’s client the expense and uncertainty of further litigation. The defense of the client, a large national retail chain, was supported by Partner Mark Trokan and groups across GRSM’s General Liability Coverage and Retail and Hospitality.  practices.

The case arose out of a stabbing incident at an apartment complex, which was owned and operated by GRSM’s client. The victim had allegedly been stabbed by a tenant of the apartment complex while on the premises, though there was a dispute between the parties as to whether he was an invitee, licensee, or trespasser at the time of the incident. Nonetheless, the victim was charged with trespassing by local law enforcement, and he ultimately passed away.

The personal representative of the decedent filed suit against numerous parties, including GRSM’s client, the owner and operator of the apartment complex. The plaintiff claimed that the apartment complex failed to maintain the premises in a safe condition because it allegedly failed to prevent the stabbing incident from taking place, either by failing to provide adequate security or by failing to properly check the background of the tenant for a propensity toward criminal behavior.

Before any depositions were taken, GRSM acted swiftly and filed a motion for summary judgment, noting that because the plaintiff’s claim was essentially a premises liability claim of an invitee arising out of a criminal act, the Mississippi Landowners Protection Act applied. Since the plaintiff did not satisfy the essential requirements of the Act, which included proving that the apartment complex “impelled” the criminal act, the plaintiff’s claim could not survive summary judgment.

The district court not only agreed with GRSM’s argument but also further examined the plaintiff’s claim under traditional analysis of duties owed to trespassers and licensees, concluding that the apartment complex did not willfully or wantonly act to injure the decedent. Accordingly, no matter the classification of the decedent, the trial court found that the plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact and determined that summary judgment was indeed appropriate.

GRSM’s early engagement in motion practice in this case secured a favorable outcome for its client, consistent with both the Landowners Protection Act and Mississippi common law governing premises liability cases.

The court held that the plaintiff health plan failed to state plausible claims under both ERISA Section 502(a)(3) and state contract law for more than $2.5 million in disputed stop-loss reimbursement. The ruling turned on the court’s interpretation of unambiguous stop-loss policy language defining when medical expenses are “incurred” and which participants qualify as “covered persons” eligible for reimbursement.

The dispute arose when a plan participant’s health coverage terminated due to non-payment, but his hospitalization, which began while he was still covered, continued for more than three months after termination. The health plan paid substantial post-termination medical bills and sought reimbursement from GRSM’s client, arguing the expenses should be covered under creative theories involving DRG bundling and policy “run-in” provisions.

The GRSM team successfully demonstrated that the stop-loss policy’s plain language excluded post-termination expenses for ineligible participants. The court agreed that the plaintiff’s ERISA claim impermissibly sought legal relief, monetary reimbursement characterized as “quintessentially an action at law,” rather than the equitable relief required under Section 502(a)(3). On the breach of contract claim, the court held that once the participant’s eligibility ended, all subsequent medical expenses fell outside the policy’s coverage as a matter of law, and the court rejected the plaintiff’s DRG and run-in arguments as inconsistent with the policy’s unambiguous terms.

The GRSM team argued that any amendment would be futile given the policy’s clear language and the allegations in the complaint. The court agreed, granting dismissal with prejudice. This final dismissal bars the plaintiff from re-pleading these claims and completely removes GRSM’s client from the litigation without incurring any discovery costs.

The case arose from a terminated distribution relationship between the parties, after the plaintiff asserted a broad range of claims, including breach of contract, federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related state law causes of action. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant engaged in improper post-termination conduct involving the marketing and sale of competing products and the use of allegedly similar branding.

GRSM moved to dismiss the complaint on multiple grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court granted the motion, finding that a mandatory forum selection clause governed the dispute and required that all claims be brought exclusively in a different forum.

The court determined that the forum selection clause was valid, enforceable, and sufficiently broad to encompass all asserted claims, including statutory claims, because they arose from the parties’ contractual relationship. The court further held that, in the absence of the contractually agreed forum, the plaintiff failed to establish an independent basis for personal jurisdiction.

Based on these findings, the court dismissed the action in its entirety for lack of personal jurisdiction. This outcome demonstrates the strength of GRSM’s Intellectual Property Litigation practice in managing complex trademark disputes. The team’s skilled litigators and deep IP knowledge ensure client assets are protected through tailored legal strategies.