Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ellis v. Target Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division

October 3, 2018

MARY ELLIS, Plaintiff,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This slip-and-fall case was originally filed on July 26, 2017, in the Circuit Court of Marshall County, by the Plaintiff, Mary Ellis, against the Defendant, Target Corporation. (Doc. 1-1 at 2). The Defendant removed the case to this Court on August 30, 2017. (Doc. 1). The Complaint sets out counts for negligence (Count One) and recklessness/wantonness (Count Two).

         The case comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment which was filed on June 5, 2018 (the “Motion”). (Doc. 12). Pursuant to this Court's Uniform Initial Order (doc. 4) any response to that motion was originally due no later than June 26, 2018. Any reply would have been due no later than July 10, 2018. This Court held a telephone conference on August 10, 2018, after no opposition or reply brief was filed. (Doc. 16). During that conference, the parties informed the Court that settlement negotiations were ongoing, and requested that, to facilitate those negotiations, this Court set the deadline for response to the Motion for August 30, 2018. The Court did so. (Doc. 17). The reply brief would have been due no later than September 13, 2018. As of this date, nothing further has been filed.

         The motion is now ripe for decision. For the reasons stated herein, the motion will be GRANTED, and this case will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         I. STANDARD

         Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (“[S]ummary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The party requesting summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings or filings that it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56(e) requires the non-moving party to go beyond the pleadings in answering the movant. Id. at 324. By its own affidavits - or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file - it must designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id.

         II. FACTS[1]

         The following facts, proffered by the Defendant in support of the Motion, have not been disputed by the Plaintiff:

1. On July 27, 2015, Mrs. Ellis was shopping at the Target store in Huntsville, Alabama.
2. As she was entering the Target store, she stepped on a single piece of crayon that was lying on the floor.
3. When she stepped on the piece of crayon, her foot slipped and she fell.
4. There were no other crayons or pieces of crayons on the floor in the area where Mrs. Ellis fell.
5. The piece of crayon was less than half an inch in length and appeared to be just ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.