Sullivan v. Target Corp.
| Decision Date | 01 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-CV-1086-CC |
| Parties | PAMELA SULLIVAN, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION, BRIAN GRISMORE, and BRITTANY WILLIAMS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
This premises liability action is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Brian Grismore and Brittany Williams as Party Defendants [Doc. No. 4] (the "Motion to Dismiss"), Plaintiff Pamela Sullivan's Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 5], Defendant Brian Grismore's Motion for Leave to Amend Defendant Brian Grismore's Special Appearance and Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No. 16], Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend Defendants' Petition for Removal [Doc. No. 17], Defendant Brian Grismore's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 24], and Defendant Brittany Williams's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 25]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 4], DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 5], DENIES AS MOOT Defendant Brian Grismore's Motion for Leave to Amend Defendant Brian Grismore's Special Appearance and Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No. 16], GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend Defendants' Petition for Removal [Doc. No. 17], DENIES Defendant Brian Grismore's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 24], and DENIES as moot Defendant Brittany Williams's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 25].
On May 21, 2016, Plaintiff Pamela Sullivan ("Plaintiff") was shopping in a Target store located at 3660 Marketplace Boulevard, East Point, Fulton County, Georgia, 30344 (the "Target Store"). While at the store, Plaintiff allegedly slipped on a slippery substance, which she believed to be bubble solution, and fell. Plaintiff alleges that her slip-and-fall incident was due to the negligence of Defendants Target Corporation, Brian Grismore, and Brittany Williams.
On May 21, 2016, the day of the subject incident, Defendant Grismore was the manager of the Target Store, but he was not working at the Target Store on that day. (DSMF ¶¶ 1, 2.) Defendant Grismore was not working at the Target Store on the day of the subject incident. (Id. ¶ 2.) Defendant Grismore has no ownership interest in the Target Store. (Id. ¶ 3.) There is no evidence that Defendant Grismore had knowledge of the spill or created or directed to be created the hazard that allegedly caused Plaintiff's injuries. (Id. ¶ 10.)
Target creates all policies and procedures with respect to the Target Store's operations, including employee and customer safety as well as inspection and spill cleanup procedures and all hiring or firing of employees. (Id. ¶ 4.) Target also creates the training policies, procedures, and materials by which all Target employees are trained in the performance of their job duties, including all training related to inspection of the premises and spill cleanup. (Id. ¶ 5.)
As store manager, Defendant Grismore did not have authority to create any policies and procedures regarding safety, inspection and spill cleanup, or hiring or firing of employees. (Id. ¶ 6.) He also had no authority to operate the store outside of Target's corporate policies. (Id. ¶ 7.) As store manager, Defendant Grismore had no authority to create or change training policies, procedures, or materials. (Id. ¶ 8.) He did not set policies or procedures regarding employee wages, and he did not have a right to exclude customers, perform repairs in the store, pay taxes or employee wages or assume specific lease obligations for the store. (Id. ¶ 9.)
Defendant Grismore did run the entire store. (PSMF ¶ 7.) He was responsible for the overall operation of the store, even when he was not physically present. (Id. ¶ 9.) When he had a day off, however, there would be another manager on duty who was in charge. (Deposition of Brian Grismore "Grismore Dep." [Doc. No. 32-4] at p. 53.)
Defendant Grismore had executive team leaders who oversaw the logistics, front end, and human resources departments, and these executive team leaders all reported to him. (PSMF ¶ 6; Grismore Dep. at p. 29.) He could call for a store-wide meeting if he wanted one. (PSMF ¶ 8.) Defendant Grismore could personally fire executive team leaders (PSMF ¶ 10.)
Defendant Grismore watched trainers in the human resources department in order to improve training techniques and make sure they were being effective in getting the new employees to follow Target's policies and procedures. (Id. ¶ 11; Grismore Dep. at pp. 29-30.) He could have employees retrained if he thought they were being counterproductive. (Id. ¶ 12.) Defendant Grismore could have employees retrained to make them work more efficiently. (Id. ¶ 13.)
Defendant Grismore could order employees to change store displays for customer safety reasons. (Id. ¶ 14.) He also could address an immediate safety problem at his store and then recommend a change to the Target corporate policy to his supervisor. (Id. ¶ 15.) Defendant Grismore could address safety issues with promotional programs, but he could not change Target procedures. (Id. ¶ 16; Grismore Dep. at 31.)
Defendant Grismore could order his associates to be additionally vigilant for hazards during Christmas and other busy periods. (PSMF ¶ 17.) Defendant Grismore could have a customer removed from the store if they were being disruptive or making inappropriate sexual comments to his associates. (Id. ¶ 18.) He could have associates enter the interview process for management if he felt they showed promise. (Id. ¶ 19.)
Target policies indicate that a spill should be blocked and cleaned up whenever noticed by an associate. (Id. ¶ 20.) Two Target employees walked past the bubble solution, which was the alleged hazard in this case, approximately two minutes prior to Plaintiff being injured. (Id. ¶ 21.) There is no evidence that the two Target employees who walked past the bubble solution were ever retrained on the Target policy regarding slip and fall prevention. (Id. ¶ 24.)
Brittany Williams repeatedly testified about a lack of proper training at Target. (Id. ¶ 22.) She testified that, if she needed to choose between moving carts versus cleaning up a spill and she would get in trouble for moving carts but not get in trouble for not cleaning up a spill, then she would move carts. (Deposition of Brittany Williams at p. 28.)
Plaintiff originally filed suit against Defendant Target Corporation and Brian Grismore on March 7, 2018, in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia, Civil Action File No. 18EV001037 (the "Original Action"). Defendants Target and Grismore timely answered the complaint in the Original Action on April 12, 2018. On May 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to add Brittany Williams as a defendant. The state court judge entered an order granting the motion to add Ms. Williams on August 3, 2018. Plaintiff filed her amended complaint in state court on August 8, 2018, and Plaintiff served Ms. Williams with a copy of the amended complaint in the Original Action on August 15, 2018. Thereafter, Ms. Williams moved to be dismissed from the case. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice on January 24, 2019, while the motion to dismiss was still pending.
Plaintiff re-filed her case against Defendants Target, Grismore, and Williams in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia, on February 13, 2019. She asserts a negligence claim against Defendant Target; a negligence claim against Mr. Grismore, as the alleged general manager of the Target Store; and a negligence claim against Ms. Williams, as the alleged Senior Team Leader of the Target Store. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Grismore and Williams failed to maintain the premises, negligently trained and supervised Target employees, and failed to adopt or enact appropriate policies and procedures to ensure that the appropriate inspections, cleaning, and maintenance were performed on the premises in a timely manner. Plaintiff seeks at least $93,161.01 in special damages as well as general damages.
On March 7, 2019, Defendants Target and Williams filed their Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendant Grismore, who had not yet been served with the Summons and Complaint, filed a Special Appearance and Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendants also removed the action to this Court.
Shortly after removing the action to this Court, Defendants filed a motion seeking the dismissal of Defendants Grismore and Williams, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. Plaintiff then filed a motion to remand the case back to the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia. While these motions have been pending, Defendant Grismore has moved the Court for leave to amend his Special Appearance and Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint, and Defendants have moved the Court to amend their Petition for Removal. Also now pending before the Court are a summary motion filed by Defendant Grismore and a summary judgment motion filed by Defendant Williams.
Defendant Grismore moves the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, for leave to amend his Special Appearance and Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendant Grismore stated in his Special Appearance and Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint that he is a citizen of Georgia, but that statement was made in error. According to a declaration that Defendant Grismore has provided, on January 12, 2019, Defendant Grismore moved his permanent residence to Louisiana, where he continues to live. Accordingly, for the purpose of clarifying that he is not a resident of Georgia, Defendant Grismore requests leave of Court to amend his Special Appearance and Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint.
At the time Defendant Grismore filed his Special Appearance and Answer and...
To continue reading
Request your trial