Smith v. Wal-Mart Louisiana

Case: 21-30665 Document: 00516242258 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 16, 2022
No. 21-30665
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Katrina Smith,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Wal-Mart Louisiana, L.L.C.,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
No. 1:19-CV-447
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
This is a retail slip-and-fall case brought to federal court by diversity
of citizenship. The plaintiff, Katrina Smith, alleged, under the Louisiana
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-
ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-30665 Document: 00516242258 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2022
No. 21-30665
Liability Act, La. Rev. Stat. § 9.2800.6, that she slipped on a clear liquid
and was injured.
In a concise but comprehensive Memorandum Ruling issued on Sep-
tember 2, 2021, the district court granted summary judgment for the defen-
dant, Wal-Mart Louisiana, L.L.C. The court concluded that “Smith fails to
provide any positive evidence establishing constructive notice and ʻ[m]ere
speculation . . . is not sufficient to meet [Smith’s] burden and [this court] will
not infer constructive notice for purposes of summary judgment where[her]
allegations are no more likely than any other potential scenario.’” (district
court’s alterations) (quoting Bagley v. Albertson’s, Inc., 492 F.3d 328, 330 (5th
Cir. 2007)).
In so deciding, the court took careful note of Smith’s theory that sur-
veillance video supported her claim. We agree with the district court’s con-
clusions based on its application of Louisiana law and the summary judgment
evidence.
On appeal, Smith avers that the district court should have allowed her
to amend to add a complaint against a non-diverse store employee who
walked directly by a spill. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), “[i]f after removal the
plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy sub-
ject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and
remand . . . .” The district court was well within its discretion to deny amend-
ment to add a non-diverse hourly employee who was in the course of per-
forming general administrative duties.
The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons
amply explained in the Memorandum Ruling.
2