Sambrooks v. Choiseme

• Decision Date: 25 February 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2:12-CV-102,2:12-CV-102
• Parties: TAMMY SAMBROOKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CLAUDE CHOISEME, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

TAMMY SAMBROOKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CLAUDE CHOISEME, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:12-CV-102

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

February 25, 2015

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the: (1) Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed by Defendants, Claude Choiseme, Walgreen-Oshkosh Inc., d/b/a Walgreen Co., and Transervice Lease Corp., d/b/a Tranverse Lease Corp., on May 7, 2014 (DE #34); and (2) Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits Designated By Plaintiffs, filed by Defendants, Claude Choiseme, Walgreen-Oshkosh Inc., d/b/a Walgreen Co., and Transervice Lease Corp., d/b/a Tranverse Lease Corp., on June 6, 2014 (DE #42). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Strike (DE #42) is DENIED as MOOT. Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE #34) is GRANTED. The Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant, Transervice Lease Corp. d/b/a Transverse Lease Corp., are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Additionally, the claims for reckless and willful and wanton conduct (for punitive damages) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The remaining claims in the complaint REMAIN PENDING. Finally,Plaintiffs' request for additional discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This litigation arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on May 14, 2010, on southbound US 41 in St. John, Lake County, Indiana, between Defendant, Claude Choiseme (hereinafter "Choiseme" and Plaintiff, Tammy Sambrooks (hereinafter "Sambrooks"). Defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the claims against Defendant, Transervice, and on all the claims for reckless, willful, and wanton conduct against all the Defendants. (DE #34). Plaintiffs filed a response memorandum on May 23, 2014 (DE #41), and Defendants filed a reply on June 6, 2014 (DE #44). Therefore, this motion is fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. Additionally, Defendants filed a motion to strike certain exhibits designated by Plaintiffs (DE #42). Plaintiffs failed to file a response to the motion to strike Plaintiffs' Exhibits A, E, and F, which Defendants argue are not admissible for the purpose of ruling on this motion because they are not authenticated.

DISCUSSION

The standards that generally govern summary judgment motions are familiar. Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure, summary judgment is proper only if it is demonstrated that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Nebraska v. Wyoming, 507 U.S. 584, 590 (1993); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). In other words, the record must reveal that no reasonable jury could find for the nonmovant. Karazanos v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 948 F.2d 332, 335 (7th Cir. 1991); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, a court must view all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; NUCOR Corp. v. Aceros Y Maquilas De Occidente, 28 F.3d 572, 583 (7th Cir. 1994).

The burden is upon the movant to identify those portions of, "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits," if any, that the movant believes, "demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once the movant has met this burden, the nonmovant may not rest upon mere allegations, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Becker v. Tenenbaum-Hill Assocs., Inc., 914 F.2d 107, 110 (7th Cir. 1990); Schroeder v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 875 F.2d 613, 620 (7th Cir. 1989). "Whether a fact is material depends on the substantive law underlying a particular claim and 'only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit undergoverning law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.'" Walter v. Fiorenzo, 840 F.2d 427, 434 (7th Cir. 1988) (emphasis in original) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248).

"[A] party who bears the burden of proof on a particular issue may not rest on its pleading, but must affirmatively demonstrate, by specific factual allegations, that there is a genuine issue of material fact which requires trial." Beard v. Whitley Cnty. REMC, 840 F.2d 405, 410 (7th Cir. 1988) (emphasis in original); see also Hickey v. A.E. Staley Mfg., 995 F.2d 1385, 1391 (7th Cir. 1993). Therefore, if a party fails to establish the existence of an essential element on which the party bears the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment will be appropriate. In this situation, there can be, "'no genuine issue as to any material fact,' since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

In a diversity case, like this action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this Court applies Indiana state substantive law and federal procedure. See, e.g., Erie v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938); Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 465 (1965); Trytko v. Hubbell, Inc., 28 F.3d 715, 719-20 (7th Cir.1994)(citing Kutsugeras v. AVCO Corp., 973 F.2d 1341, 1346 (7th Cir. 1992)).

Motion to Strike

The Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Exhibits A, E, and F, which are not authenticated. Plaintiffs' Exhibit A is the Indiana Standard Crash Report (DE #40-1); Plaintiffs' Exhibit E is the USDOT Safety Measurement System Carrier Overview (DE #40-5); and Plaintiffs' Exhibit F is the USDOT Safety Measurement System Inspection Report (DE #40-6). Plaintiffs did not respond to the motion to strike.

Motions to strike are heavily disfavored, and usually only granted in circumstances where the contested evidence causes prejudice to the moving party. Kuntzman v. Wal-Mart, 673 F.Supp.2d 690, 695 (N.D. Ind. 2009); Gaskin v. Sharp Elec. Corp., No. 2:05-CV-303, 2007 WL 2228594, at *1 (N.D. Ind. July 30, 2007). As discussed below, even considering the evidence set forth by Plaintiffs (including unauthenticated Exhibits A, E, and F), partial summary judgment is still appropriate, and this Court prefers to rule upon all the evidence before it. Therefore, the motion to strike (DE #42) is DENIED AS MOOT.

Motion For Partial Summary Judgment

Undisputed Facts

The two vehicles involved in the accident were Plaintiff's vehicle and a semi-tractor trailer operated by Choiseme, owned and maintained by Defendant, Transervice Lease Corporation (hereinafter "Transervice"), and leased to Defendant Walgreen-Oshkosh, Inc.("Walgreen"). Plaintiff alleges she was stopped at a red traffic light and that Choiseme rear-ended her vehicle. (DE #1, ¶¶ 5,8.) Sambrooks testified she was on her way to K-Mart in St. John, Indiana, heading southbound on US 41. (Sambrooks Dep., p. 30.) She was stopped behind another semi tractor-trailer waiting for the light to turn green, when all of a sudden she heard glass breaking and the sounds of the collision. (Id.) She could not recall any conversations at the scene with the other driver or investigating police officer. (Id., pp. 31-32.) She did not have personal knowledge regarding the speed at which Choiseme was traveling. (Id., pp. 78-79.)

Choiseme admits that the accident occurred when he was driving southbound on US 41 and when the car in front of him stopped, and he "was unable to avoid striking the rear of her vehicle." (Defs.' Ex. A, No. 15.) However, Choiseme alleges the collision occurred because Sambrooks' vehicle in front of him stopped. (Id.) This is somewhat different than the narrative in the police report, which reads that Choiseme "thought the traffic was moving. He realized the vehicles were stopped and hit the brake but could not stop in time and hit vehicle #2. He thought the traffic light was green." (DE #40-1.) The listed speed limit was 45 miles per hour, and was approaching a lower speed zone of 35 mph. (Casassa Expert Report, DE #40-2, p. 2.) Although there is no direct evidence how fast Choiseme was traveling before the collision, Plaintiffs' expert hasopined that he was traveling at least 50 mph before he applied the brakes. (Id., p. 4.)

At the time of the accident, Choiseme was operating a 1999 International semi-tractor/trailer combination leased by Walgreen from Transervice. (Defs.' Am. Answer, ¶ 6.) The arrangement between Defendants arose out of a Labor Services Agreement and an Equipment Leasing and Maintenance Agreement ("leasing agreement"). (Defs.' Exs. C, D.) Transervice was the owner and lessor of the equipment and Walgreen was the lessee of equipment. Id. Under the terms of the leasing agreement, Walgreen did not have exclusive possession and control of the equipment and, in addition to its maintenance obligations, Transervice supplied all of the fuel required to operate the equipment while Choiseme drove it. Id.

Defendants have admitted that Choiseme was negligent and was at fault for the collision with Sambrooks, but Defendants deny any more egregious conduct. (DE #28; DE #32.) The Indiana State Police Commercial Enforcement Division found no violations regarding the equipment's braking system. (Defs.' Ex. B.) Choiseme was cited for violating several trucking regulations - 49 C.F.R. § 392.2D (local law violation - speed too fast to avoid a collision), 49 C.F.R. § 395.8(k)(2) (failure to retain a copy of his driver logs for the previous seven days), and 49 C.F.R. § 395.8(f)(1) (failure to keep his driver log current on the day of the collision). (Indiana State Police Commercial VehicleEnforcement Report, Defs.' Ex. B.)

Whether Transervice Is Entitled To Judgment As A Matter Of Law On All Of Plaintiffs' Claims

Defendants argue Transervice is entitled to summary judgment because it merely owned the equipment being operated by Choiseme at the time of the accident, maintained the equipment, and leased the equipment to...