AI Case Brief
Generate an AI-powered case brief with:
đKey Facts
âïžLegal Issues
đCourt Holding
đĄReasoning
đŻSignificance
Estimated cost: $0.10â$0.50 per brief, depending on opinion length and retries
Full Opinion
United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION TERESA ZUNIGA, § § Plaintiff, § Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-355 § Judge Mazzant v. § § WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC, § § Defendant. § § § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court are Defendantâs Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims in Plaintiffâs First Amended Petition, Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #15) and Defendantâs Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support (Dkt. #19). After consideration, the Court finds that both motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On September 9, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. #15). Plaintiff did not file a response. On November 8, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #19). On December 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a response (Dkt. #21). On December 19, 2019, Defendant filed a reply (Dkt. #34). On December 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply (Dkt. #35). LEGAL STANDARD I. 12(b)(6) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that each claim in a complaint include a âshort and plain statement . . . showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.â FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Each claim must include enough factual allegations âto raise a right to relief above the speculative level.â Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion allows a party to move for dismissal of an action when the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in plaintiffâs complaint and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen, 681 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2012). The Court may consider âthe complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.â Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010). The Court must then determine whether the complaint states a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. âA claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the [C]ourt to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.â Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). âBut where the well- pleaded facts do not permit the [C]ourt to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has allegedâbut it has not âshow[n]âââthat the pleader is entitled to relief.ââ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)). In Iqbal, the Supreme Court established a two-step approach for assessing the sufficiency of a complaint in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. First, the Court should identify and disregard conclusory allegations, for they are ânot entitled to the assumption of truth.â Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 664. Second, the Court âconsider[s] the factual allegations in [the complaint] to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.â Id. âThis standard âsimply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary claims or elements.ââ Morgan v. Hubert, 335 F. Appâx 466, 470 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). This evaluation will âbe a context-specific task that requires the reviewing [C]ourt to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.â Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Thus, â[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to âstate a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.ââ Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). II. Summary Judgment The purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323â24 (1986). Summary judgment is proper under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure âif the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.â FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A dispute about a material fact is genuine when âthe evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.â Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Substantive law identifies which facts are material. Id. The trial court âmust resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary judgment.â Casey Enters., Inc. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir. 1981). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of its motion and identifying âdepositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materialsâ that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(A); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the movant bears the burden of proof on a claim or defense for which it is moving for summary judgment, it must come forward with evidence that establishes âbeyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or defense.â Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986). Where the nonmovant bears the burden of proof, the movant may discharge the burden by showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmovantâs case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; Byers v. Dall. Morning News, Inc., 209 F.3d 419, 424 (5th Cir. 2000). Once the movant has carried its burden, the nonmovant must ârespond to the motion for summary judgment by setting forth particular facts indicating there is a genuine issue for trial.â Byers, 209 F.3d at 424 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248â49). A nonmovant must present affirmative evidence to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257. Mere denials of material facts, unsworn allegations, or arguments and assertions in briefs or legal memoranda will not suffice to carry this burden. Rather, the Court requires âsignificant probative evidenceâ from the nonmovant to dismiss a request for summary judgment. In re Mun. Bond Reporting Antitrust Litig., 672 F.2d 436, 440 (5th Cir. 1982) (quoting Ferguson v. Natâl Broad. Co., 584 F.2d 111, 114 (5th Cir. 1978)). The Court must consider all of the evidence but ârefrain from making any credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.â Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007). ANALYSIS I. 12(b)(6) Defendant moved to dismiss and strike Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffâs first amended petition on the ground that Plaintiff fails to state any factual allegations in support of her malice and gross negligence claims. After consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately stated at least plausible claims for gross negligence and malice upon which relief could be granted. Accordingly, Plaintiffâs pleadings are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). II. Summary Judgment Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to (1) whether Defendant had actual or constructive notice of the alleged condition giving rise to Plaintiffâs injury; and (2) whether Defendantâs conduct was the proximate cause of Plaintiffâs injury. After a careful review of the record and the arguments presented, the Court is not convinced that Defendant has met its burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to these elements of premises liability that would entitle it to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendantâs motion for summary judgment should be denied. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendantâs Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims in Plaintiffâs First Amended Petition, Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #15) and Defendantâs Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support (Dkt. #19) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case Information
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Decision Date
- January 31, 2020
- Status
- Precedential