Mulligan v. Wal-Mart Inc. ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CHERYL MULLIGAN CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 20-697 WAL-MART INC. SECTION: “G”(4) ORDER In this litigation, Plaintiff Cheryl Mulligan (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she sustained personal injuries when she slipped and fell while shopping at Wal-Mart in Kenner, Louisiana as a result of Defendant Wal-Mart, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) negligence.1 Before the Court is Defendant’s “Motion for Summary Judgment.”2 The instant motion was noticed for submission on February 24, 2021. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, any opposition to a motion must be filed eight days before the noticed submission date. At a status conference before the Court on February 23, 2021, counsel for Plaintiff stated that Plaintiff does not oppose the motion and does not object to dismissal of this action. This Court has authority to grant a motion as unopposed, although it is not required to do so.3 District courts may grant an unopposed motion as long as the motion has merit.4 Under Louisiana law, a plaintiff who seeks to recover on a negligence claim brought against a merchant 1 Rec. Doc. 1-1 at 1. 2 Rec. Doc. 15. 3 Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 356 (5th Cir. 1993). 4 See Braly v. Trail, 254 F.3d 1082 (5th Cir. 2001). 1 by a person lawfully on the merchant’s premises for damages as a result of an injury, death, or loss sustained because of a fall due to a condition existing in or on a merchant’s premises must prove that ‘“[t]he merchant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition which caused the damage, prior to the occurrence.”° In the instant motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed because “‘no genuine issues of material fact exist concerning [Defendant’s] creation or actual or constructive notice of the condition on the premises.”® Considering Defendant’s argument in light of Louisiana law and Plaintiff's counsel’s representation that Plaintiff does not oppose dismissal of this action, the Court finds that the instant motion has merit. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Wal-Mart, Inc.’s “Motion for Summary Judgment”’ is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims asserted by Plaintiff Cheryl Mulligan against Defendant Wal-Mart, Inc. are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 2>"Riay of February, 2021. NANNETTE JOLI TE BROWN CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT > La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.6. ® Rec. Doc. 15-1 at 4. 7 Rec. Doc. 15.