Plaintiff filed suit after she was bitten by a dog owned by a fellow tenant at an apartment complex, contending that management failed to prevent the dog from attacking her. As counsel for the management company, Gray•Duffy demonstrated the lack of any viable theory of liability and demanded a dismissal, to which the Plaintiff’s counsel ultimately agreed.
Grigoryan v Goldrich & Kest Industries LLC
Plaintiff alleged that she was attacked and bitten by a fellow tenant’s dog in a building managed by a Gray•Duffy client. The dog in question was a small companion animal prescribed by an internist for the tenant. The dog was registered with the landlord as a service animal and was in compliance with the rules and regulations and had up-to-date vaccinations. The animal was on a leash at the time of the incident. There was no previous history of aggressive behavior by the dog which was reported to the landlord.
Gray•Duffy attorney, Michelle MacDonald, engaged in a number of informal meet and confer conferences with the Plaintiff’s attorney regarding the lack of notice to the landlord of the dog’s alleged vicious propensities as well as the misjoinder of an incorrect entity. Plaintiff counsel acceded to her request and dismissed the matter voluntarily before a demurrer was required.
Please Note: This article is necessarily general in nature and is not a substitute for legal advice with respect to any particular case. Readers should consult with an attorney before taking any action affecting their interests.