Koger v. Innovative Heights Fairview Heights, LLC

Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARCUS KOGER,
as Next Friend of B.K., a minor
Plaintiff,
vs.
INNOVATIVE HEIGHTS FAIRVIEW
HEIGHTS, LLC,
d/b/a SkyZone Trampoline Park,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:25-CV-1637-MAB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:
On July 7, 2025, Plaintiff Marcus Koger, as Next Friend of his son B.K., filed suit in
the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, against Innovative Heights Fairview
Heights, LLC (Doc. 1-2). Plaintiff alleged that B.K was injured at the Sky Zone Trampoline
Park in Fairview Heights, Illinois on December 30, 2024, which was owned, operated,
leased, and/or managed by Innovative Heights (Doc. 1-2, para. 3, 4, 6).
An entity named Grim Raven, LLC, voluntarily entered the case and removed it
to federal court on August 25, 2025 (Doc. 1). That same day, Grim Raven filed an answer
admitting that it operated SkyZone on the date in question and was mistakenly named
in the Complaint as Innovative Heights (Doc. 3; see also Doc. 1). Innovative Heights
contemporaneously filed a motion asking to be dismissed from this lawsuit because it
was not affiliated with SkyZone at the time of B.K.’s injury or at present (Doc. 4). Plaintiff
did not file a response to Innovative Heights’ motion to dismiss.
Case 3:25-cv-01637-MAB Document 19 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 2
The Court notes that Innovative Heights, in making its motion to dismiss, included
and relied on a document outside of the complaint (Doc. 5-1). Consideration of this
document, however, is not necessary to decide whether Innovative Heights should be
dismissed from this action.1 Plaintiff does not dispute that Innovative Heights is not the
proper Defendant in this action and has not voiced any objection to the dismissal of
Innovative Heights. Furthermore, Grim Raven has admitted to being the proper
Defendant and to being properly served and is actively litigating the lawsuit.
Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) is GRANTED. Innovative Heights
Fairview Heights, LLC is DISMISSED without prejudice as a Defendant in this case.
Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint on or before November 13, 2025, that conforms
with the dismissal of Innovative Heights and Grim Raven’s admissions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 4, 2025
s/ Mark A. Beatty
MARK A. BEATTY
United States Magistrate Judge
1 See Geinosky v. City of Chicago, 675 F.3d 743, 745 n.1 (7th Cir. 2012) (“A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) can be
based only on the complaint itself, documents attached to the complaint, documents that are critical to the
complaint and referred to in it, and information that is subject to proper judicial notice. . . . If a moving
party relies on additional materials, the motion must be converted to one for summary judgment under
Rule 56.”) (citations omitted); But see Levenstein v. Salafsky, 164 F.3d 345, 347 (7th Cir. 1998) (explaining that
when documents outside of the complaint are attached to a motion to dismiss, the court can choose to
exclude the documents from consideration in order to handle the motion under Rule 12 rather than
converting it to a motion under Rule 56).
Case 3:25-cv-01637-MAB Document 19 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>