Johnson v. Harrah Casino, No. 2:2016cv13242 - Document 13 (E.D. La. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS deferring ruling on 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff by February 1, 2017 amend his complaint to name the proper defendant. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/12/2017. (cg)

Download PDF

Johnson v. Harrah Casino Doc. 13 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A LEON ARD JOH N SON , Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 16 -13 2 4 2 H ARRAH ’S CASIN O, D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent filed by Defendant, Harrah’s New Orleans Casino. 1 Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. For the following reasons, the Court’s ruling on the m otion is D EFERRED . On J uly 26, 20 16, Plaintiff Leonard J ohnson filed a com plaint against Harrah’s Casino. 2 Plaintiff alleges he was a patron of the land-based casino in New Orlean s, Louisiana on August 21, 20 15 and upon leaving the casino, he was followed by a m an. 3 Plaintiff avers he m ade repeated requests for the m an to stop following him . 4 Plaintiff alleges he walked back into the casino and thereafter was struck by the m an who was following him . 5 According to the Plaintiff, he broke his ankle, sustained a head injury, and lost consciousness as a result of being hit. 6 Plaintiff alleges the casino failed to provide adequate security and failed to tim ely respond to the alleged battery. 7 On Decem ber 22, 20 16, Defendant filed a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent seeking to dism iss Plaintiff’s claim s because Plaintiff incorrectly sued “Harrah’s Casino,” which is actually nam ed “Harrah’s New Orleans Casino” and Harrah’s New Orleans Casino is a 1 R. Doc. 12. R. Doc. 1. Leonard J ohnson is a pro se plaintiff. 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 Id. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com trade n am e incapable of being sued under Louisiana law. 8 Plain tiff did not file an opposition to the m otion. The Defendant is correct that under Louisiana law, a trade nam e is not an entity capable of being sued. 9 Article 736 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] person who does business under a trade nam e is the proper defendant in an action to enforce an obligation created by or arising out of the doing of such business.”10 The official revision com m ent states “It has been held that a suit brought against the owner only in the trade nam e used was sufficient to justify rendition of judgm ent against the owner.”11 In Louisiana, a trade nam e has no separate existen ce apart from the individual doing business under that trade nam e. 12 The Court notes, however, that m otions seeking dism issal of a plaintiff’s claim s because the plaintiff nam ed the in correct defendant are ordinarily brought as a m otion to dism iss under Rule 12. 13 It is well established that “pro se com plaints are held to less stringent standards than form al pleadings drafted by lawyers.”14 Considering J ohnson’s pro se status an d the deficiencies of his com plaint, the Court finds it appropriate to allow J ohnson the opportunity to am end his com plaint to nam e the proper defendant. The Court finds that granting J ohnson leave to am end will not cause Defendant any prejudice, as it was aware of the filing of this suit even though the incorrect entity was nam ed. Pursuant to Federal 8 R. Doc. 12. Louisiana Acorn Fair Hous. v. Quarter House, 952 F. Supp. 352, 355 (E.D. La. 1997) (citing Guidry v. City of Houm a, 471 So. 2d 10 56, 10 58 (La. Ct. App. 1 Cir.1985)). 10 LA. CODE CIV. P ROC. art. 736. 11 Id. (Official Revision Com m ent) (citin g Rea v. Dow Motor Co., 36 So.2d 750 , 755– 56 (La. Ct. App. 2 Cir. 1948). 12 Quarter House, 952 F. Supp. at 355. 13 See, e.g., D’Aquin v. Starw ood, No. 16-12798 , 20 16 WL 6436561 (E.D. La. Oct. 31, 20 16); Louisiana Acorn Fair Hous. v. Quarter House, 952 F. Supp. 352, 355 (E.D. La. J an. 9, 1997). 14 Miller v. Stanm ore, 636 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir. 1981); see also Tay lor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 20 0 2). 9 2 Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which provides that the Court should freely grant leave to am end “when justice so requires,” the Court finds that justice requires that J ohnson be allowed to am end his com plaint and n am e the proper defendant(s). Accordingly; CON CLU SION IT IS ORD ERED that the Plaintiff by Fe bru ary 1, 2 0 17 am end his com plaint to nam e the proper defen dant. IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s m otion for sum m ary judgm ent 15 is D EFERRED . N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 12 th d ay o f Jan u ary, 2 0 17. _______________________ ________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 15 R. Doc. 12. 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.