Vanessa Catalano v. GWD Mgmt. Corp., No. 05-16425 (11th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 05-16425 ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 03-00167-CV-4 VANESSA CATALANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MCDONALD S CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, GWD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, d.b.a. McDonald s Corporation, Defendant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia _________________________ (September 28, 2006) Before BIRCH, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Vanessa Catalano sued McDonald s Corporation ( McDonald s ) and GWD Management Corporation ( GWD ), the owner-operator of a McDonald s franchise restaurant in Hinesville, Georgia, for damages resulting from an incident in which GWD employees followed the instructions of a prank caller in performing a strip search of Catalano. The district court granted partial summary judgment to GWD and granted summary judgment to McDonald s on all of Catalano s claims against McDonald s. While the remaining claims against GWD proceeded in district court, the district court entered judgment for McDonald s pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Catalano then brought this appeal, challenging only the district judge s grant of summary judgment to McDonald s on Catalano s negligence claims brought pursuant to negligent undertaking and premises liability theories (Counts X and XII of the First Amended Complaint), claim for attorneys fees (Count XIII), and claim for punitive damages (Count XV). Having considered the briefs and relevant parts of the record, we find no error in the district court s grant of summary judgment to McDonald s. As to the negligent undertaking claim, we find that summary judgment was properly granted to McDonald s for the reasons stated by the district court. (R.6-117 at 30-31). We also conclude that the district court correctly found that McDonald s fully surrendered the premises to GWD and therefore, pursuant to O.C.G.A. ยง44-7-14, is not liable to Catalano on a premises liability theory. ( R.6-117 at 27). Having decided that the district court properly found that McDonald s is not liable to Catalano on the 2 negligence claims, we do not address the claims for attorneys fees and punitive damages. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
