Meadows v. Jazz Casino Company, LLC et al, No. 2:2015cv01204 - Document 64 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS DENYIN 56 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 4/8/2016. (my)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Meadows v. Jazz Casino Company, LLC et al Doc. 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CONNIE MEADOWS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 15-120 4 J AZZ CASINO COMPANY, LLC SECTION: R ORD ER AN D REASON S Plaintiff Connie Meadows m oves for partial sum m ary judgm ent on the issue of liability in her slip-and-fall claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1 For the following reasons, the Court denies the m otion. I. BACKGROU N D On J une 22, 20 14, plaintiff Connie Meadows slipped and fell on a plastic sign cover in a corridor within Harrah's Casino in New Orleans, Louisiana.2 Defendant J azz Casino Com pany, LLC owns and operates the Harrah's Casino. Meadows alleges that a casino em ployee placed the sign cover on the corridor floor while he was changing an advertising display.3 According to Meadows, she was walking through the corridor, "looking straight [ahead]," when she 1 R. Doc. 56. 2 R. Doc. 1-1 at 1. 3 Id. at 2. Dockets.Justia.com stepped on the sign cover and fell to the floor.4 As a result, Meadows allegedly sustained shoulder injuries requiring surgical treatm ent.5 According to J azz Casino Company, the sign cover was clearly visible and easy to avoid, and Meadows's fall resulted from her own inattention.6 In support, J azz Casino Company cites surveillance footage of the accident, which shows that prior to Meadows's fall, several casino patrons walked through the corridor without incident.7 J azz Casino Com pany also cites Meadows's deposition testim ony that although the corridor was well-lighted, she did not see the casino em ployee who was changing the advertising display until after her fall.8 II. D ISCU SSION To prevail on a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, the m ovant m ust show "that there is no genuine dispute as to any m aterial fact and the m ovant is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex 4 R. Doc. 56-6 at 4. 5 R. Doc. 56-2 at 1. 6 R. Doc. 58 at 9. 7 Id. at 7. 8 R. Doc. 58-2 at 2-3. 2 Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322– 23 (1986). The Court m ust draw all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonm oving party. Galindo v. Precision Am . Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985). The Court's review of the record in this case indicates that there rem ain contested issues of m aterial fact regarding J azz Casino Com pany's liability. J azz Casino Com pany points to a num ber of outstanding factual issues, including whether the sign cover presented an unreasonable risk of harm , as required by Louisiana tort law.9 Accordingly, the Court denies Meadows's m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff Connie Meadows's m otion for partial sum m ary judgm ent as to liability. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _8th day of April, 20 16. __ ___________________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 9 R. Doc. 58 at 6-10 . 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.
