Henry v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 2:2012cv02978 - Document 30 (E.D. La. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER and REASONS - Presently before the Court is the "Motion for Summary Judgment" filed by Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 25 . Having carefully considered the parties' supporting and opposing submissions (Rec. Docs. 25, 26, and 29 ), IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion is GRANTED for essentially the reasons stated in Defendant's original and reply memoranda (Rec. Docs. 25 and 29). Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the tort claims asserted herein by Plaintiff, Althea Henry, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 10/8/2013. (cbs)

Download PDF
Henry v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Doc. 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALTHEA HENRY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 12-2978 WAL-MART STORES, INC. SECTION “N” (5) ORDER AND REASONS Presently before the Court is the "Motion for Summary Judgment" filed by Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Rec. Doc. 25). Having carefully considered the parties’ supporting and opposing submissions (Rec. Docs. 25, 26, and 29),1 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED for essentially the reasons stated in Defendant’s original and reply memoranda (Rec. Docs. 25 and 29). Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the tort claims asserted herein by Plaintiff, Althea Henry, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 8th day of October 2013. _________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT United States District Judge 1 As an aside, the Court notes that, on September 11, 2013, the docket clerk marked Plaintiff’s submitted memorandum in opposition (Rec. Doc. 26) as “Deficient,” because it is not accompanied by the separate statement of material facts required by Local Rule 56.2. The deficiency notice instructed Plaintiff to re-file the opposition memorandum in its entirety within seven (7) calendar days. The record does not reflect that Plaintiff ever cured this deficiency. This deficiency was not a consideration, however, in the Court’s decision to grant Defendant’s motion. Rather, as stated by Defendant, Plaintiff has put forth no evidence reflecting the existence of a triable issue relative to the elements of a “trip and fall” claim governed by the provisions of La. R.S. 9:2800.6. Dockets.Justia.com

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.