MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Andrea R. Wood, United States District Judge Plaintiff Desmond Jones was dining with his class at an Outback Steakhouse ( “ Outback ” ) in Orland Park, Illinois, when the glass chump holding his drink broke into pieces, badly injuring his pass. As a consequence, Jones sued Outback ‘s owner and operator, Defendant Bloomin ‘ Brands, Inc. ( “ BBI ” ), in the Circuit Court of Cook County, asserting one claim for negligence under Illinois state law. BBI removed Jones ‘s case to this Court based on federal diversity legal power. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Before the Court is BBI ‘s motion to dismiss Jones ‘s ailment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 ( bacillus ) ( 6 ). ( Dkt. No. 13. ) For the reasons provided below, the apparent motion is denied. Jones is a citizen of Illinois while BBI is a citizen of Delaware and Florida. ( Notice of Removal ¶¶ 3, 4, Dkt. No. 1 ). In accession, BBI alleges an measure in controversy greater than $ 75, 000 based on, among other things, commensurateness from Jones ‘s guidance setting forth Jones ‘s claim damages and liquidation requirement. ( Notice of Removal, Ex. C, Dkt. No. 1-3. )

BACKGROUND Because BBI has moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12 ( bel ) ( 6 ), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in Jones ‘s ailment and view those facts in the light most favorable to Jones as the nonmoving party. Bell v. City of Country Club Hills, 841 F.3d 713, 716 ( 7th Cir. 2016 ). As alleged, BBI is incorporated in Delaware and chiefly operates in Florida. ( Notice of Removal ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 1. ) On October 7, 2018, Jones, an Illinois house physician, visited BBI ‘s Outback restaurant in Orland Park with his family for a birthday celebration. ( Id. ¶ 2 ; id. at Ex. A, Compl. ¶ 8, Dkt. No. 1-1. ) A wait served Jones water with lemon in a glass chump. ( Compl. ¶¶ 9-10. ) After taking a sip, Jones placed the chump on the table and it broke into respective pieces. ( Id. ¶¶ 14- 15. ) One of the shards of glass hard cut Jones ‘s left index finger, resulting in Jones needing surgery and other aesculapian treatment. ( Id. ¶¶ 15-16. ) Jones claims that unknown to him, the glaze chump contained a defect that made it insecure and prone to break. ( Id. ¶ 12. ) He besides alleges that BBI failed to inspect the mug properly before serving it to him. ( Id. ¶ 23. ) consequently, he has sued BBI, asserting one count of coarse law negligence. DISCUSSION To survive a rule 12 ( bel ) ( 6 ) motion to dismiss, “ a complaint must contain sufficient actual matter, accepted as true, to ‘ submit a claim for respite that is plausible on its font. ‘ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 ( 2009 ) ( quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 ( 2007 ) ). A claim has facial plausibility when “ the plaintiff pleads factual contented that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is apt for the mismanage alleged. ” Yeftich v. Navistar, Inc., 722 F.3d 911, 915 ( 7th Cir. 2013 ) ( quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ). While there is no bright-line quiz for facial plausibility, the standard requires the pleadings to show “ more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. ” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Although a complaint need not contain detail actual allegations, a plaintiff ‘s obligation “ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of natural process will not do. ” Id. at 716-17 ( quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 ). As a union court sitting in diversity, this Court applies federal procedural rules and state of matter substantive law. Goesel v. Boley Int’l (H.K.) Ltd., 806 F.3d 414, 419 ( 7th Cir. 2015 ) ( citing Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 ( 1938 ) ). “ When neither party raises a conflict of law topic in a diverseness case, the applicable law is that of the department of state in which the federal court sits. ” Fednav Int’l Ltd. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 624 F.3d 834, 838 ( 7th Cir. 2010 ) ( inner quotation marks omitted ). thus, the Court applies Illinois law to Jones ‘s negligence claim.

To department of state a claim for negligence under Illinois police, the plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to establish that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty, and the plaintiff suffered an injury proximately caused by the breach. Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 856 N.E.2d 1048, 1053 ( Ill. 2006 ). Jones ‘s allegation that he suffered his injuries while dining at BBI ‘s restaurant ( see Compl. ¶ 7 ) is sufficient to plead the first gear element : that BBI owed him a duty of care. All restaurants and other businesses have a general duty to protect their invitees from excessive risks of physical damage. See Marshall, 856 N.E.2d at 1058. Jones besides alleges that when the glass mug broke, it badly injured his hand ( Compl. ¶¶ 15-16 ), and so he has pleaded the third element as well. thus, the only chemical element at offspring is whether Jones has pleaded facts sufficient to suggest that BBI breached its duty of wish. BBI asserts that Jones has only alleged facts that are consistent with-but suffice not credibly suggest-a breach of duty. First, it challenges Jones ‘s allegation that the field glass broke because it was bad as “ notional ” because Jones has not described the nature of the defect. consequently, BBI concludes, it is fair vitamin a probable that Jones caused the looking glass to break as it is that the glass was defective. But Jones specifically alleges that the mug “ contained a defect in the looking glass that made [ it ] insecure and prone to breaking. ” ( Compl. ¶ 12. ) This is a actual allegation regarding the mug that is entitled to deference at the pleadings degree. Jones besides asserts that he “ set the mug down on [ the ] table, ” and the reasonable inference to make in his favor on that allegation is that he put down the mug in a normal manner-one that would not typically cause a glass mug to shatter. ( Id. ¶ 14. ) finally, Jones has pleaded that BBI was responsible for the countenance ‘s blemish because it failed to prevent wrong to the countenance. ( Id. ¶ 23. ) His allegations credibly establish that BBI is at mistake for his injury. BBI contends that Jones must plead more detail about the nature of the mug ‘s defect, citing Weddle v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 14 C 09549, 2016 WL 1407634 ( N.D. Ill. Apr. 11, 2016 ). But that case is inapposite. In Weddle, the plaintiff alleged that she had suffered pain caused by a assemble of medical hardware implanted in her ankle, separate components of which had been manufactured by three separate companies. Id. at *2. The plaintiff alleged that a bad intersection manufactured by at least one of the three companies had injured her, but she did not assert that any particular one of the companies had caused her injuries. Id. The motor hotel noted that under the plaintiff ‘s pleadings “ it [ was ] evenly impossible to discern whether all, some, or none of the defendants ‘ products failed ” and concluded that “ it is not enough to say that the claim can go forward against all of the defendants because at least one of them must be liable. ” Id. at *3. No. alike circumstances are salute here-Jones has directly alleged which product was bad and has identified the defendant that he claims is responsible for failing to inspect it. BBI besides objects that Jones has not sufficiently pleaded that BBI had actual or constructive cognition of the chump ‘s defect. “ Liability is imposed on a defendant who had actual or constructive comment of a dangerous condition that injured the plaintiff. ” Olivarius v. Tharaldson Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 695 F.Supp.2d 824, 832 ( N.D. Ill. 2010 ) ( citing Culli v. Marathon Petroleum Co., 862 F.2d 119, 123 ( 7th Cir.1988 ) ). constructive cognition is established where “ the defect or condition existed for a sufficient sum of time that the defendant should have discovered it in the exercise of reasonable care ” or “ the dangerous discipline was separate of a practice of conduct or a recur incident. ” Id. ( citing Culli, 862 F.2d at 123 ). To the extent that Jones must allege facts that credibly establish constructive cognition at the pleading stage, he has done therefore. Jones has pleaded that BBI “ [ f ] ailed to exercise due worry and precaution to prevent price to its looking glass mugs ” and “ [ f ] ailed to by rights inspect the glass mug served to [ Jones ]. ” ( Compl. ¶ 23. ) As such, Jones ‘s pleadings suggest that BBI ‘s failure to discover the blemish in his mug was not a erstwhile error, but rather a broader failure tied to the restaurant ‘s blueprint of conduct. The cases that BBI cites in corroborate of its position address the standard that a plaintiff alleging negligence must meet at the summary judgment stage of proceedings. See Reid v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 545 F.3d 479, 481-82 ( 7th Cir. 2008 ) ( holding that, at summary judgment, plaintiff ‘s speculation as to length of meter that dangerous stipulate had persisted did not create triable issue of fact ) ; Britton v. Univ. of Chi. Hosps., 889 N.E.2d 706, 708-09 ( Ill.App.Ct. 2008 ) ( granting compendious judgment against plaintiff claiming negligence, where plaintiff presented no attest of actual or constructive cognition by defendant ) ; Holloway ex rel. Holloway v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ill., 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 255, 258 ( 1992 ) ( lapp ). Although Jones would be required to make a stronger showing in reply to a summary judgment motion, his pleadings suffice to state a claim.

BBI besides contends that Jones can not pursue a negligence claim under a res ipsa loquitur hypothesis because he has not indicated his purpose to do then in his complaint. Because Jones has stated a claim for negligence without relying on that theory, the Court does not reach the issue. That said, Jones is free to pursue alternate legal theories going fore : “ a plaintiff need not plead legal theories. .. [ and ] when a plaintiff does plead legal theories, it can late alter those theories. ” BRC Rubber & Plastics, Inc. v. Cont’l Carbon Co., 900 F.3d 529, 540-41 ( 7th Cir. 2018 ) ( inner quotation marks and citations omitted ). The Court besides does not reach the parties ‘ discussion of products liability negligence standards because Jones disclaims any intention of bringing a products indebtedness claim. ( Pl. ‘s Resp. at 5-6, Dkt. No. 18. ) CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, BBI ‘s motion to dismiss Jones ‘s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 ( bacillus ) ( 6 ) ( Dkt. No. 13 ) is denied.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.