Raborn v. Con-way Truckload, Inc. et al, No. 2:2015cv02969 - Document 47 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 40 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/28/2016. (cg)

Download PDF
Raborn v. Con-way Truckload, Inc. et al Doc. 47 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A KRISTIE L. RABORN , Pla in tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 15 -2 9 6 9 CON -W AY TRU CKLOAD , IN C., ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E”( 2 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the court is a m otion for partial sum m ary judgm ent filed by Plaintiff, Kristie L. Raborn. 1 Defendant Con-way Truckload, Inc. (“Con-way”) opposes this m otion. 2 For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s m otion 3 is D EN IED . BACKGROU N D On J une 30 , 20 15, Raborn filed a Petition for Dam ages in the 21st J udicial District Court for the Parish of Tangipahoa against Defendants Con-Way, Gustavo J . Rivera, an d State Farm Mutual Autom obile Insurance Com pany. 4 Raborn alleged injuries and dam ages arising out of an autom obile accident that occurred on August 15, 20 14, when a com m ercial tractor-trailer driven by Rivera and owned by Con-Way rear-ended Raborn’s vehicle on Highway 51 in Ham m on d, Louisiana. 5 According to Raborn, she suffered “severe and perm anent personal injuries to her head, neck, back, wrist and other anatom y which caused . . . physical and m ental pain, suffering, and disability.”6 1 R. Doc. 40 . R. Doc. 42. As Plaintiff explains in her m otion for partial sum m ary judgm ent, Defendant Con-way has no knowledge of Mr. Rivera’s whereabouts. R. Doc. 40 -1, at 1. 3 R. Doc. 40 . 4 R. Doc. 1-5 at 1. 5 R. Doc. 1-5 at 2. 6 R. Doc. 1-5 at 3. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com On Novem ber 15, 20 16, Raborn filed her m otion for partial sum m ary judgm ent. 7 Raborn seeks partial sum m ary judgm ent as to the following: 1) at the tim e of the accident at issue, Defendant Rivera was an em ployee of Defendant Con-way; 2) at the tim e of the accident, Defen dant Rivera was acting within the course and scope of his em ploym ent with Defendant Con-way; and 3) Defendant Rivera’s negligence was the sole cause of the m otor vehicle accident. 8 On Novem ber 22, 20 16, Defendant Con-way filed an opposition to the Plaintiff’s m otion. 9 Con-way argues Plaintiff has offered no eviden ce to support her m otion for partial sum m ary judgm ent. 10 LEGAL STAN D ARD Sum m ary judgm ent is appropriate only “if the m ovant shows 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.”11 “An issue is m aterial if its resolution could affect the outcom e of the action.”12 When assessing whether a m aterial factual dispute exists, the Court considers “all of the eviden ce in the record but refrains from m aking credibility determ inations or weighing the evidence.”13 All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonm oving party. 14 There is no genuine issue of m aterial fact if, even viewing the evidence in the light m ost 7 R. Doc. 40 . Id. at 1. 9 R. Doc. 42. 10 Id. at 1. Defendant Con-way only addresses the first to parts of Plaintiff’s m otion, whether Defendant Rivera was Con-way’s em ployee at the tim e and whether Defendant Rivera was acting within the course and scope of his em ploym ent at the tim e of the accident. R. Doc. 42, at 2. Defendant Con-way does not contest whether Defendant Rivera’s negligence was the sole cause of the accident. 11 F ED . R. CIV. P. 56; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322– 23 (1986). 12 DIRECTV Inc. v. Robson, 420 F.3d 532, 536 (5th Cir. 20 0 5). 13 Delta & Pine Land Co. v. N ationw ide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398 (5th Cir. 20 0 8); see also Reeves v . Sanderson Plum bing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 – 51 (20 0 0 ). 14 Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 10 69, 10 75 (5th Cir. 1994). 8 2 favorable to the nonm oving party, no reasonable trier of fact could find for the nonm oving party, thus entitling the m oving party to judgm ent as a m atter of law. 15 If the dispositive issue is on e on which the m oving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial, the m oving party “m ust com e forward with evidence which would ‘entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.’”16 If the m oving party fails to carry this burden, the m otion m ust be denied. If the m oving party successfully carries this burden, the burden of production then shifts to the nonm oving party to direct the Court’s attention to som ething in the pleadings or other evidence in the record setting forth specific facts sufficient to establish that a genuine issue of m aterial fact does indeed exist. 17 If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonm oving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial, the m oving party m ay satisfy its burden of production by either (1) subm itting affirm ative eviden ce that negates an essential elem ent of the nonm ovant’s claim , or (2) affirm atively dem onstrating there is no evidence in the record to establish an essential elem ent of the nonm ovant’s claim . 18 When proceeding under the first option, if the nonm oving party cannot m uster sufficient eviden ce to dispute the m ovant’s contention that there are no disputed facts, a trial would be useless, and the m oving party is entitled to sum m ary judgm ent as a m atter of law. 19 When, however, the m ovant is proceeding under the second option and is seeking sum m ary judgm ent on the ground that the nonm ovant has no evidence to establish an essential elem en t of the claim , the 15 Sm ith v. Am edisy s, Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 440 (5th Cir. 20 0 2). Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally ’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263– 64 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Lease, 755 F. Supp. 948, 951 (D. Colo. 1991)). 17 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322– 24 (Brennan , J ., dissenting). 18 Id. at 331– 32. 19 First N ational Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 28 8 – 89 (198 0 ); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249– 50 (1986). 16 3 nonm oving party m ay defeat a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent by “calling the Court’s attention to supporting evidence already in the record that was overlooked or ignored by the m oving party.”20 Under either scenario, the burden then shifts back to the m ovant to dem onstrate the inadequacy of the eviden ce relied upon by the nonm ovant. 21 If the m ovant m eets this burden, “the burden of production shifts [back again] to the nonm oving party, who m ust either (1) rehabilitate the evidence attacked in the m oving party’s papers, (2) produce additional eviden ce showing the existen ce of a genuine issue for trial as provided in Rule 56(e), or (3) subm it an affidavit explaining why further discovery is necessary as provided in Rule 56(f).”22 “Sum m ary judgm ent should be granted if the nonm oving party fails to respond in one or m ore of these ways, or if, after the nonm oving party responds, the court determ ines that the m oving party has m et its ultim ate burden of persuading the court that there is no genuine issue of m aterial fact for trial.”23 “[U]nsubstantiated assertions are not com petent sum m ary judgm ent evidence. The party opposing sum m ary judgm ent is required to identify specific evidence in the record and to articulate the precise m anner in which that evidence supports the claim . ‘Rule 56 does not im pose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party’s opposition to sum m ary judgm ent.’”24 20 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 332– 33. 21 Id. 22 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 332– 33, 333 n.3. Id.; see also First N ational Bank of Arizona, 391 U.S at 289. 24 Ragas v. Tenn . Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998) (citin g Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Forsy th v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994) an d quoting Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 90 9, 915– 16 & n .7 (5th Cir. 1992)). 23 4 AN ALYSIS Defendant Con-way argues Raborn has offered no evidence that Defendant Gustao Rivera was an em ployee of Con-way at the tim e of the accident, or that Mr. Rivera was acting in the course and scope of his em ploym ent at the tim e of the accident. 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(1) provides, in part: A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed m ust support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of m aterials in the record, including depositions, docum en ts, electronically stored inform ation, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those m ade for purposes of the m otion only), adm ission, interrogatory answers, or other m aterials; or (B) showing that the m aterials cited do not establish the absence or presen ce of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce adm issible eviden ce to support the fact. 26 As Defendant Con-way correctly identifies, “Because Plaintiff has not cited any m aterials in the record or offered com petent evidence that Mr. Rivera was a Con-way em ployee as of August, 15, 20 14 or that he was in the course and scope of his em ploym ent on that date, she has failed to m eet her sum m ary judgm ent burden with respect to either of those issues.”27 The Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant “cannot deny” Mr. Rivera was an em ployee and in the course and scope of his em ploym ent during the tim e of the accident 28 are clearly insufficient to satisfy her sum m ary judgm ent burden. 25 R. Doc. 42, at 1-2. F ED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1). See also R. Doc. 25, at 3-4 (explain ing the Court’s requirem ents regardin g dispositive m otions). 27 R. Doc. 42, at 2. 28 R. Doc. 40 -1, at 2. 26 5 CON CLU SION IT IS ORD ERED that Plaintiff’s m otion for partial sum m ary judgm ent 29 is D EN IED . N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 8 th d ay o f N o ve m be r, 2 0 16 . ________________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 29 R. Doc. 40 . The Court fin ds that although it was not directly opposed, the Plaintiff has also failed to substantiate her claim that Mr. Rivera’s negligence was the sole cause of the accident in question . 6

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.