Keys v. Target Corporation, No. 2:2022cv01389 - Document 27 (D. Nev. 2024)
Court Description: ORDER granting 25 Joint Pretrial Order. Calendar Call set for 10/29/2024 at 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 6C before Judge Andrew P. Gordon. Jury Trial Stack set for 11/4/2024 at 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 6C before Judge Andrew P. Gordon. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 3/28/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CT)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Keys v. Target Corporation 1 2 3 4 5 6 Doc. 27 ALAN W. WESTBROOK, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 006167 PERRY & WESTBROOK, A Professional Corporation 11500 S. Eastern, Suite 140 Henderson, NV 89052 Telephone: (702) 870-2400 Facsimile: (702) 870-8220 Email: awestbrook@perrywestbrook.com Attorney for Defendant Target Corporation 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 TEKEEYSHA KEYS, an individual; 12 CASE NO.: 2:22-cv-01389-APG-DJA Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 vs. JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER TARGET CORPORATION, DOE EMPLOYEES OF TARGET CORPORATION; DOES 1-20 and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants. 18 19 20 Following pretrial proceedings in this cause, 21 22 IT IS ORDERED: I. 23 NATURE OF THE ACTION 24 25 26 PARTIES: Plaintiff: TEKEEYSHA KEYS 27 28 Defendant: TARGET CORPORATION 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 On March 8, 2021, Tekeeysha Keys was shopping on the premises and sales floor area of 2 the Target Store located at 1200 S Nellis Blvd, Las Vegas, NV in Las Vegas, Nevada. While 3 upon the premises a stepladder fell from its display. 4 5 Plaintiff’s Contentions: 6 1. Plaintiff was walking through the store when a stepladder, which Target had 7 previously placed on display for sale, fell off the shelf and struck her on her head and 8 neck. 9 2. The stepladder was displayed and/or stored in a manner that was insufficient to 10 11 protect the stepladder from falling from its display as there was no type of fastener or 12 stopper on the subject display to secure the stepladder from falling from the display 13 onto patron. (Dangerous Condition) 14 3. The subject stepladder was displayed at a height that exceeded the height of the 15 plaintiff. 16 17 4. There was no warning sign regarding removing the stepladders from a high display 18 or any type of warning signifying that employee assistance is needed prior to 19 removing the ladders from the display. 20 5. The Dangerous Condition was caused as a direct result of the Defendants’ failure to 21 maintain the Property in a reasonable and safe manner. 22 23 6. At all times relevant, Defendants maintained and were in control of the Property, and 24 the subject Dangerous Condition, which was on the Property, where Plaintiff was 25 injured. 26 7. Defendant had actual notice, actual knowledge, constructive notice, and/or knew or 27 28 should have known of the Dangerous Condition. 2 1 8. That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff 2 sustained serious injuries and suffered great pain of body and mind, some of which 3 conditions are permanent and disabling, all to Plaintiff’s general damage in an amount 4 5 in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00). 6 Defendant’s Contentions: 7 1. At no time relevant to this cause was there a dangerous condition existing on the 8 9 Target premises related to the merchandising and display of stepladders. 2. That the stepladders were displayed consistent with the policies of Target and that 10 11 12 13 14 proper care was implemented by Target to ensure that there were no dangerous conditions present on its premises. 3. That the plaintiff caused the incident by failing to act with reasonable care and dislodging the stepladder by backing into the display with a backpack purse. 15 4. That the plaintiff was negligent in causing the stepladder to fall from its display. 16 17 5. That the plaintiff was not struck in the head by the stepladder as alleged. 18 6. That the plaintiff was not injured as a result of the alleged incident. 19 7. That the plaintiff failed to mitigate any damages claimed. 20 II. 21 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 22 23 This Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. Plaintiff, at the time of 24 the alleged incident, was a resident of the State of Nevada, and currently resides in Georgia. The 25 Defendant is a Minnesota Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of 26 Minnesota. This matter involves a claim for damages in excess of $75,000. Jurisdiction is therefore 27 28 3 1 based upon diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The parties admit that jurisdiction is 2 proper and admit that venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 3 III. 4 THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE ADMITTED BY THE PARTIES AND REQUIRE 5 6 NO PROOF: 7 1. 8 While the specifics of the alleged incident are in dispute, it is agreed that the subject of this suit occurred on March 8, 2021. 9 2. While the specifics of the alleged incident are in dispute, it is agreed that the subject 10 of this suit occurred at the Target store located at 1200 S Nellis Blvd, Las Vegas, 11 NV in Las Vegas, Nevada. 12 13 14 3. Plaintiff was shopping at the subject Target store with her friend, Sharde Ashford. 4. While shopping, a step ladder did dislodge from a display 5. For the purposes of diversity, Target Corporation is a Minnesota corporation, with 15 16 its principle place of business in Minnesota and licensed to do business in County 17 of Clark, State of Nevada. 18 19 6. 20 For the purposes of diversity, the plaintiff, at the time of the incident, was a resident of Nevada, and subsequently has moved and is a resident of Georgia. 21 IV. 22 23 24 THE FOLLOWING FACTS, THOUGH NOT ADMITTED, WILL NOT BE CONTESTED AT TRIAL BY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY: 25 26 None. /// 27 28 /// 4 1 V. 2 3 THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ISSUES OF FACT TO BE TRIED AND DETERMINED AT TRIAL: 4 Plaintiff: 5 1. 6 Whether an employee of Target store negligently caused the subject display to be overstocked that led to Plaintiff’s incident? 7 8 2. 9 Whether Target employees failed to provide a safe environment for customers of the Target Store? 10 3. 11 Whether an employee of Target store negligently failed to take adequate measures to protect against the type of conditions that led to Plaintiff’s incident? 12 13 14 4. Whether the hazardous condition was readily apparent to Plaintiff? 5. Whether Target negligently failed to keep the subject display in the Target store 15 in a reasonably safe condition for Target customers and to protect Target 16 customers against dangers caused by its routine business practice of restocking 17 produce while the Target Premises remains open for business? 18 19 20 6. Whether Target negligently failed to warn Plaintiff of an unsafe condition? 7. Whether Plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of Target’s negligence? 8. Whether the injuries Plaintiff sustained were proximately caused by the subject 21 22 step ladder falling on her as a result of Target’s negligence? 23 9. 24 25 Whether the medical expenses incurred by Plaintiff as a result of Target’s negligence were reasonable and necessary? 26 10. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to general damages for her pain and suffering? 27 28 /// 5 1 11. 2 3 Whether Plaintiff is entitled to damages for future medical care and expenses incidental thereto? Defendant: 4 1. Was there a hazardous or unreasonably dangerous condition? 6 2. Was the stepladder properly and reasonably displayed? 7 3. Did the plaintiff dislodge the displayed stepladder? 8 4. Would the stepladder have been dislodged if not for the actions of plaintiff? 5. Was plaintiff struck by the stepladder? 6. Was Plaintiff injured, and if so, what were the injuries? 12 7. What injuries were proximately caused by actions of Target? 13 8. What injuries were proximately caused by the actions of Plaintiff? 9. Was the plaintiff’s claimed medical treatment reasonable, necessary and related 5 9 10 11 14 15 to the claimed incident? 16 17 18 10. What were the reasonable costs of treatment for injuries proximately caused by negligence of Defendant? 19 VI. 20 THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ISSUES OF LAW TO BE TRIED AND 21 DETERMINED AT TRIAL: 22 1. Was Defendant negligent in relation to the subject incident? 23 2. Were the alleged injuries of Plaintiff, if any, proximately caused by the negligence of 24 25 26 27 28 Target and/or its employees? 3. Was Plaintiff negligent in relation to the subject incident? 4. Were the alleged injuries of Plaintiff, if any, proximately caused by the negligence of Plaintiff? 5. Can Plaintiff sustain her burden of proof that she incurred damages? 6 1 6. Did Plaintiff fail to mitigate her damages? 2 VII. 3 4 5 6 7 EXHIBITS a. EXHIBITS Plaintiff’s: 1. Medical records and billing from Valley Hospital, bates-stamped VALLEY000001VALLEY000051; 8 Target’s Objections: Target objects on the basis of foundation, relevancy, and hearsay, but does 9 not object to authenticity. 10 11 2. Medical records and billing records from Shadow Emergency Physicians, batesstamped SHAD000052-SHAD000054; 12 Target’s Objections: Target objects on the basis of foundation, relevancy, and hearsay, but does 13 not object to authenticity. 14 3. Medical records and billing from Desert Radiologists, bates-stamped DESRA000055; 15 Target’s Objections: Target objects on the basis of foundation, relevancy, and hearsay, but does 16 not object to authenticity. 17 4. Medical 18 records and billing from Spinal Rehabilitation, bates-stamped SPINREH000057-SPINREH000146; 19 Target’s Objections: Target objects on the basis of foundation, relevancy, and hearsay, but does 20 not object to authenticity. 21 5. Medical 22 records from Shield Radiology, bates-stamped SHIELD000147- SHIELD000149; 23 Target’s Objections: Target objects on the basis of foundation, relevancy, and hearsay, but does 24 not object to authenticity. 25 26 6. Medical records from Las Vegas Radiology, bates-stamped LVRADI000150LVRADI000169; 27 Target’s Objections: Target objects on the basis of foundation, relevancy, and hearsay, but does 28 not object to authenticity. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 7. Medical records from Neurological Center, bates-stamped NEUR000170- NEUR000174; Target’s Objections: Target objects on the basis of foundation, relevancy, and hearsay, but does not object to authenticity. 8. Medical records from William Muir MD, bates-stamped MUIR000175- MUIR000319; Target’s Objections: Target objects on the basis of foundation, relevancy, and hearsay, but does not object to authenticity. 9. Medical records from Nevada Medical Consultants, bates-stamped NVMED000320NVMED000340; 12 Target’s Objections: Target objects on the basis of foundation, relevancy, and hearsay, but does 13 not object to authenticity. 14 15 16 17 18 10. Curriculum Vitae, Expert Witness Testimony History, Fee Schedule from William S. Muir, MD, bates-stamped as MUIREX0001-MUIREX0025. Target’s Objections: Target objects on the basis of hearsay. Defendant’s: 19 11. Guest Incident Report (DEF000001); 20 12. LOD Investigation Report (DEF000002); 21 13. Photo Collection Form and Checklist (DEF000003); 14. Evidence/Photo Sticker (DEF000004); 15. Evidence/Photo Sticker (DEF000005); 25 16. Evidence/Photo Sticker (DEF000006); 26 17. Video of Alleged Incident (DEF000007); 27 18. Video of Alternate View and After Alleged Incident (DEF000008); 19. Video of Plaintiff Filling Out Incident Report (DEF000009); 22 23 24 28 8 1 20. Video of Plaintiff Walking Towards Exit (DEF000010); 2 21. Video of Plaintiff Exiting Store (DEF000011); 22. Time Entries re Target Team Members Elicia Valencia and Jefferson Lague 3 4 (DEF00633); 5 6 23. (DEF00634 – 00638); 7 8 9 Target Display Planogram (disclosed pursuant to Stipulated Protective Order) 24. Dr. Reynold L. Rimoldi, MD’s Report dated April 17, 2023; Plaintiff’s Objections: Target objects on the basis of hearsay. 10 11 12 13 25. Dr. Rimoldi’s Supplemental Report dated April 27, 2023; Plaintiff’s Objections: Target objects on the basis of hearsay. 26. Dr. Rimoldi’s Curriculum Vitae, Fee Schedule and Testimony List. 14 15 Electronic evidence: Defendant anticipates utilizing the court’s electronic evidence 16 display system. Defendant does not anticipate utilizing native electronic evidence but will be 17 displaying video electronically. This includes the presentation of video electronically to the jury 18 for deliberations. The parties will coordinate with the courtroom administrator as contemplated 19 by the Local Rules. 20 21 b. 22 AS TO THE EXHIBITS, DEFENDANT STIPULATES AS FOLLOWS: 1. authenticity of Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1-9. 23 24 25 Set forth stipulations as to Plaintiff’s exhibits: Defendant stipulates to the c. DEPOSITIONS: 1. The depositions that have been taken in the instant litigation are as follows: 26 - Plaintiff, Takeeysha Keys; 27 - Sharde Ashford; and 28 - William Muir, MD 9 1 2 3 4 The parties intend to offer live testimony of designated witnesses at trial and do not anticipate offering any depositions unless a witness becomes unavailable at the time of trial, however, may use depositions for the purposes of impeachment, if necessary. d. 5 6 7 OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITIONS: 1. There are no portions of depositions anticipated to be read in trial at this time. Parties object to the use of depositions at trial for use other than impeachment of any witnesses who are available to appear and testify at trial. 8 VIII. 9 10 11 THE FOLLOWING WITNESSES MAY BE CALLED BY THE PARTIES UPON TRIAL: Plaintiff’s Witnesses: 12 13 14 WILL CALL: 1. Tekeeysha Keys, Plaintiff c/o Betsy C. Jefferis-Aguilar, Esq. HICKS & BRASIER, PLLC 2630 S. Jones Blvd. Las Vegas, Nevada 89146 2. FRCP 30(b)(6) Witness(es) for Target Corporation, Defendant c/o ALAN W. WESTBROOK, ESQ. PERRY & WESTBROOK, A Professional Corporation 11500 S. Eastern, Suite 140 Henderson, NV 89052 3. Elicia Valencia c/o ALAN W. WESTBROOK, ESQ. PERRY & WESTBROOK, A Professional Corporation 11500 S. Eastern, Suite 140 Henderson, NV 89052 4. Sharde Ashford 3750 E. Bonanza Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89108 702-913-0161 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 1 5. 2 3 4 WILLIAM S. MUIR, MD 653 N. Town Center Drive, #210 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 Phone: (702) 254-3020 MAY CALL: 5 1. Michael Barnum, MD FRCP 30(b)(6) and/or Custodian of Records at Valley Hospital 620 Shadow Lane Las Vegas, NV 89106 2. FRCP 30(b)(6) and/or Custodian of Records at Shadow Emergency Physicians P.O. Box 13917 Philadelphia, PA 19101-3917 3. Desert Radiology P.O BOX 841645 Los Angeles, CA 90084 4. Thomas A. Shang, MD and/or FRCP 30(b)(6) and/or Custodian of Records at Spinal Rehabilitation Center 4416 E. Bonanza Road, Suite 150, Las Vegas, Nevada 89110 5. Ammon Strehlow, DC, DACBR FRCP 30(b)(6) and/or Custodian of Records at Shield Radiology 5135Camino Al Norte, Suite 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89031 6. Bhuvana P. Kitusamy, MD FRCP 30(b)(6) and/or Custodian of Records at Las Vegas Radiology 7500 Smoke Ranch Road Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /// 11 1 7. Charles Kamen MD FRCP 30(b)(6) and/or Custodian of Records at Neurology Center 2480 Professional Court Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 8. FRCP 30(b)(6) and/or Custodian of Records at Nevada Medical Consultants 10040 W. Cheyenne Avenue Suite 170-18 Las Vegas, Nevada 89129 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Defendant’s witnesses: 1. Tekeeysha Keys c/o Betsy Jefferis Aguilar, Esq. HICKS & BRASIER, PLLC 2630 S. Jones Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89146 2. Person(s) Most Knowledgeable Target Corporation c/o Alan W. Westbrook, Esq. Perry & Westbrook 11500 S. Eastern, Suite 140 Henderson, Nevada 89052 3. Elicia Valencia 5551 Box Cars Ct., Unit 101 Las Vegas, NV 89122 4. Jefferson Lague c/o Alan W. Westbrook, Esq. Perry & Westbrook 11500 S. Eastern, Suite 140 Henderson, Nevada 89052 5. Dr. Reynold L. Rimoldi, M.D. Nevada Orthopedic & Spine Center 7455 W. Washington Ave., Ste. 160 Las Vegas, NV 89128 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant reserves the right to call any witness(es) identified by Plaintiff. 12 1 IX. 2 THREE ALTERNATIVE TRIAL DATES 3 4 Counsel have met and herewith submit three (3) agreed-upon trial dates: 5 1. October 14, 2024 6 2. October 28, 2024 7 3. November 4, 2024 8 It is expressly understood by the undersigned that the court will set the trial of this matter 9 10 11 on one of the agreed upon dates, if possible; if not, the trial will be set at the convenience of the Court’s calendar. 12 X. 13 TIME FOR TRIAL 14 It is estimated that the trial herein will take a total of 5-7 days. 15 16 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: 17 18 19 20 21 22 PERRY & WESTBROOK A Professional Corporation HICKS & BRASIER, PLLC /s/ Alan W. Westbrook ALAN W. WESTBROOK, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6167 11500 S. Eastern, Suite 140 Henderson, NV 89052 Attorney for Defendant Target Corporation _/s/ Betsy C. Jefferis-Aguilar_________ Betsy C. Jefferis-Aguilar, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12980 2630 S. Jones Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89146 Attorneys for Plaintiff 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 XI. ACTION BY THE COURT: 1 2 3 This case is set down for jury trial on the November 4, 2024 trial stack. 4 Calendar call shall be held on October 29, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6C. 5 6 DATED: March 28, 2024. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14
]]>
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.
