United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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
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
motion is now ripe for decision. For the reasons stated
herein, the motion will be GRANTED, and this
case will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
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.
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 ...