Golding v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP

• Decision Date: 07 December 2021
• Docket Number: 7:19-cv-67 (WLS)
• Parties: PAMELA GOLDING, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia

PAMELA GOLDING, Plaintiff,
v.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, Defendant.

No. 7:19-cv-67 (WLS)

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division

December 7, 2021

ORDER

W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Before the Court are several post-judgment motions by Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, filed June 15, 2021:

(1) Defendant's Renewed Motion for Mistrial or, in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial and Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiff's Counsel's Misconduct at Trial (Doc 114)

(2) Defendant's Amended Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. 115)

(3) Defendant's Amended Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Plaintiff's Claim for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Under O.C.G.A. 9-11-68(e) (Doc. 116); and

(4) Defendant's Motion for New Trial as an Alternative to Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. 117)

On June 23, 2021, Wal-Mart requested oral argument on these motions. (Doc. 119.) The Court denied this request, finding that none of Wal-Mart's motions raise issues of such nature or concern that a hearing will materially help the Court, especially since the Court already heard oral arguments on each of Wal-Mart's motions when Wal-Mart first raised them orally at trial. (Doc. 121.)

On July 20, 2021, Plaintiff Pamela Golding filed responses to each of the above motions. (Docs. 123; 124; 125; 126.) On August 17, 2021, Wal-Mart replied to each response. (Docs. 128; 129; 130; 131.) With this Court's permission, on September 7, 2021 Plaintiff Pamela Golding filed a sur-reply (Doc. 138) as to the issue of Attorney's Fees. Wal-Mart's motions are now ripe for review.

1

BACKGROUND

As background, this is a slip-and-fall case. Plaintiff Pamela Golding claimed that, while shopping at one of Wal-Mart's stores, she slipped and fell in a puddle of liquid left on the floor due to Wal-Mart's negligence. She fractured her thumb, requiring surgery. After her surgery, the joints and bones of her hand became infected with bacteria known as Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus, or “MRSA.” Golding sought to hold Wal-Mart liable for her injuries. (Docs. 1; 1-2 at 4-10.)

Golding filed this action against Wal-Mart on April 4, 2019 in the State Court of Tift County, Georgia. (Doc. 1.) Wal-Mart answered the Complaint on May 1, 2019 (Doc. 1-7) before removing the case to this Court on May 10, 2019. (Doc. 1.)

A jury trial was held from Monday, May 10, 2021 through Monday, May 17, 2021 in Valdosta, Georgia. (Docs. 106; 107; 108; 109; 110; 111.) At trial, Golding's primary theories were (1) that Wal-Mart failed to exercise reasonable care in inspecting the premises and failed to have reasonably safe cleaning procedures because it was cleaning the store while customers were still shopping in the store, and (2) that Wal-Mart's failure to discover and remove the hazard that injured Golding proximately caused both her initial injury to her hand and her later injuries resulting from a MRSA infection to her wounds.

Wal-Mart's primary theories were (1) that Wal-Mart exercised reasonable care in inspecting the premises and therefore was not liable for any of Golding's injuries and (2) that if Wal-Mart was liable for at least some of Golding's injuries, it was not liable for Golding's MRSA injuries because those were caused by Golding's own failure to mitigate her damages by keeping her wounds clean and dry so they would not become infected.

Trial proceeded in two phases. In Phase One, the Jury was asked to determine whether Wal-Mart was liable for Plaintiff Golding's injuries, specifically the fractured thumb and subsequent MRSA infection. In Phase Two, the Jury was asked to consider whether the Defendant had presented a frivolous claim or defense, entitling the Plaintiff to attorney's fees under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68(e).

Phase One lasted from approximately Monday, May 10, 2021 through the morning of Thursday, May 13, 2021. During Phase One the Court held a jury trial during which the jury heard evidence and argument concerning the factual questions at the core of this slip-and-fall

2

case, that is, whether Wal-Mart was liable to Golding for Golding's injuries and what damages, if any, Wal-Mart owed to Golding. (See generally Docs. 106; 107; 108.) On the morning of Friday, May 14, 2021, the jury returned a verdict in Golding's favor. The jury found “[f]or Plaintiff Golding and against Defendant Wal-Mart, ” that “Plaintiff Golding suffered damages caused by Defendant Wal-Mart's negligence, ” that “Plaintiff Golding failed to mitigate her damages” such that “the amount of her damages should be reduced accordingly, ” and that “Plaintiff Golding should recover for her injuries” total damages of $250, 000. (Docs. 91; 92; 110 at 3-5.)

Before the jury was dismissed, Plaintiff orally moved under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68(e) to recover reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation due to having to defend frivolous claims or defenses by the opposing party. This oral motion commenced Phase Two of the trial. In support of the motion Plaintiff referred the Court to a published decision by the Eleventh Circuit, Showan v. Pressdee, 922 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2019). In Showan a panel of the Eleventh Circuit examined O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68(e) and held that a prevailing party in a jury trial “has a right to a hearing if it requests one” under the statute. Id. at 1228. The Showan court reversed a district court, which had denied a hearing upon finding that the pleadings were not frivolous “as a matter of law.” Id. at 1228.

Accordingly, over Wal-Mart's objection, the Court kept the jury and held a second phase of trial. During Phase Two the jury was tasked with determining whether Plaintiff was entitled to damages in the form of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses due to Wal-Mart presenting an allegedly frivolous claim or defense. (See Doc. 110 at 11- 13.) The Parties presented evidence and argument on the issue of whether Wal-Mart had presented a frivolous defense for the rest of the day on Friday, May 14, 2021 and on Monday, May 17, 2021. On the afternoon of Monday, May 17, 2021, the jury retired to deliberate again and, later that evening, returned a verdict in Golding's favor. (Doc. 111 at 130-31.) The jury found that “Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, LP has asserted a frivolous claim, defense, or position, ” that “Plaintiff Pamela Golding should receive damages from Defendant Wal-Mart, ” and that “Plaintiff Golding should receive from Defendant Wal-Mart” damages of $9, 000. (Docs. 93; 94; 111 at 130-31.)

3

DISCUSSION

The Court has carefully considered the Parties' arguments on Wal-Mart's motions and reviewed the relevant evidence and parts of the record. For the reasons below, Wal-Mart's Amended Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. 115) is DENIED. Wal-Mart's Motion for New Trial as an Alternative to Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. 117) is DENIED. Wal-Mart's Amended Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Plaintiff's Claim for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68(e) (Doc. 116) is GRANTED. Finally, Wal-Mart's Renewed Motion for Mistrial or, in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial and Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiff's Counsel's Misconduct at Trial (Doc. 114) is DENIED.

I. Wal-Mart's Amended Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. 115)

In its Amended Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. 115), Wal-Mart argues (as it did in its original motion during trial) that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all liability issues based on the evidence presented at trial. (Doc. 115.) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)(2), a party may move for judgment as a matter of law “before the case is submitted to the jury.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(2). If a district court does not grant the motion, the movant may file “a renewed motion, ” under Rule 50(b), after trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). The standard for granting either a pre-verdict or a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is whether the evidence is “legally sufficient . . . to find for the party on that issue.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1). See generally Chaney v. City of Orlando, 483 F.3d 1221, 1227 (11th Cir. 2007) (alteration in original) (quoting 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2537 (2d ed. 1995)).

In considering whether the verdict is supported by sufficient evidence, “the court must evaluate all the evidence, together with any logical inferences, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Beckwith v. City of Daytona Beach Shores, 58 F.3d 1554, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995). The Eleventh Circuit has emphasized that it “is the jury's task-not [the court's]-to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences, and determine the credibility of witnesses.” Shannon v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 292 F.3d 712, 715 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Lipphardt v. Durango Steakhouse of Brandon, Inc., 267 F.3d 1183, 1186 (11th Cir. 2001)).

4

See generally McGinnis v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 817 F.3d 1241, 1254 (11th Cir. 2016) (explaining the foregoing). Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only when “the facts and inferences point so overwhelmingly in favor of one party that reasonable people could not arrive at a contrary verdict.” Brown v. Ala. Dep't of Transp., 597 F.3d 1160, 1173 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation, quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted).

Wal-Mart argues it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the evidence presented at trial. The evidence presented at trial showed that Wal-Mart inspected the site of Golding's fall three times shortly before Golding fell. (Doc. 115-1 at 1); (Id. at 8) (“[T]he undisputed witness testimony shows, and the store security video confirms, that three different Walmart associates were cleaning or inspecting the floor in the area where Plaintiff slipped three separate...