United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
GLEN H. DAVIDSON, Senior District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Defendant Belk Stores of Mississippi, LLC's motion for summary judgment . Upon due consideration, the Court finds that the motion should be granted.
A. Factual and Procedural Background
On November 15, 2013, Plaintiff Linda Burress ("Plaintiff') filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Lee County, Mississippi, against Defendant Belk Stores of Mississippi, LLC ("Defendant"). Plaintiff alleges that while she was shopping at the Belk department store in Tupelo, Mississippi on November 23, 2012, the Friday after Thanksgiving and the day commonly known as Black Friday, a clothing rack fell on her, causing her to sustain injuries. Plaintiff maintains that Defendant negligently constructed and erected the rack and/or failed to provide her a safe shopping environment, and thus, that Defendant breached the duty it owed to her as a Belk shopper and is liable to her for compensatory damages. See Pl.'s Compl.  ¶¶ 5-10; Def.'s Mot. Summ. J.  at 1; Pl.'s Resp. Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J.  at 1.
Defendant filed an answer  to the complaint . Plaintiff then filed a motion to remand  the case to state court. This Court subsequently denied the motion in an Order  and memorandum opinion  dated August 11, 2014, finding that the exercise of diversity jurisdiction was proper.
On April 8, 2015, Defendant filed the present motion for summary judgment  on Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff filed a response, and Defendant filed a reply. In addition, the Court held a hearing on the motion for summary judgment  on Wednesday, June 10, 2015, during which time the Court allowed the parties an opportunity to present oral argument on the issues presented in the motion for summary judgment .
B. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment "should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Johnston & Johnston v. Conseco Life Ins. Co., 732 F.3d 555, 561 (5th Cir. 2013). The rule "mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548.
The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the Court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. See id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Under Rule 56(a), the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to "go beyond the pleadings and by... affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, ' designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Littlefield v. Forney Indep. Sch. Dist., 268 F.3d 275, 282 (5th Cir. 2001); Willis v. Roche Biomedical Labs., Inc., 61 F.3d 313, 315 (5th Cir. 1995).
It is axiomatic that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment "[t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Tolan v. Cotton, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1863, 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014) (per curiam) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)) see, e.g., Ard v. Rushing, 597 F.Appx. 213, 217 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hixson Bros., Inc., 453 F.3d 283, 285 (5th Cir. 2006) (on summary judgment, "[w]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party'")). The Court "resolvers] factual controversies in favor of the nonmoving party, but only where there is an actual controversy, that is, when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.''' Thomas v. Baldwin, 595 F.Appx. 378, 378 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting Antoine v. First Student, Inc., 713 F.3d 824, 830 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). "[T]he nonmoving party cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla of evidence.'" Id. at 380 (quoting Hathaway v. Bazany, 507 F.3d 312, 319 (5th Cir. 2007)).
"[A] judge's function' at summary judgment is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for triaL'" Cotton, 134 S.Ct. at 1866 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505); see Stewart v. Guzman, 555 F.Appx. 425, 430 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (citing Vaughn v. Wood/orest Bank, 665 F.3d 632, 635 (5th Cir. 2011) (In ruling on a summary judgment motion, "[w]e neither engage in credibility determinations nor weigh the evidence.")). With the foregoing standard in mind, the Court turns to the issues before it.
Defendant maintains that Plaintiff's claims for negligent construction and premises liability should be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to substantiate her allegations. Defendant contends that the negligent construction claim should be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to present proof that Defendant either constructed or erected the subject clothing rack. Defendant further contends that the premises liability claim should be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to present proof either that Defendant knew the subject clothing rack would fall or that Defendant failed to take any action to prevent the subject clothing rack from falling. In support of its contentions for dismissal, Defendant cites to and attaches Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's interrogatories, wherein Plaintiff apparently did not identify facts showing that Defendant either constructed or erected the subject clothing rack, stated that she did not know what wrong Defendant or its employees had committed that contributed to the subject clothing rack falling upon her, and stated that neither she nor anyone on her behalf had conducted an investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the subject incident. See Pl.'s Suppl. Answers to Def.'s First Set of Interrogs. [32-2] at 1-2. Defendant further cites to and attaches Plaintiff's deposition testimony, wherein Plaintiff stated she had no knowledge of who manufactured or designed the subject clothing rack, that she had not talked with anyone at Belk regarding when the rack was installed or used, and that she had no knowledge of any wrong Defendant committed that contributed to or caused the subject clothing rack to fall. See PI.'s Dep. [32.3] at 6, 1. Defendant attaches to its summary-judgment motion a copy of Plaintiff's complaint, Plaintiff's deposition, and Defendant's answer to the complaint.
Plaintiff argues in response: "Due to the facts of the case, Plaintiff has had a difficult time providing answers that comply with the phrasing of Defendant's interrogatories." PI.'s Resp. Opp'n to Defo's Mot. Summ. J.  at 1. Plaintiff further argues that she urges her claims under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (a theory not pled in her complaint) and argues in support the following: "Defendant had complete control and management of the rack that caused the injury to Plaintiff' and "situated the rack in the store and loaded it with clothes, which, subsequently, was the proximate cause of the rack falling apart and hurting Plaintiff'; "Plaintiff had no reason to think a clothing rack would fall apart and strike her in the head while she was shopping, nor would she have reasonably had that expectation"; "the rack would not have fallen apart, injuring Plaintiff, if proper care had been taken by Defendant"; and "the injury sustained by Plaintiff was in no way caused by a voluntary act on her behalf, " as according to her deposition testimony, Plaintiff "placed the boots she was going to purchase on the floor next to the rack and... had no direct contact with the rack before it collapsed on her." Pl.'s Mem. Br. SUpp. Resp. Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J.  at 3. Plaintiff further argues that "Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of ...