Tull v. Pinnacle Entm't
| Docket Number | 23-C-236 |
| Decision Date | 27 December 2023 |
| Parties | CLAUDETTE TULL v. PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ET AL |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
ON APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY REVIEW FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 792-229, DIVISION "C" HONORABLE JUNE B. DARENSBURG, JUDGE PRESIDING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RELATOR, PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT INC. AND LOUISIANA-I GAMING, A LOUISIANA PARTNERSHIP IN COMMENDAM
Kolby P. Marchand COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT, CLAUDETTE TULL Mark Gerard Tauzier Michael K. Melucci Jon Yeager Anthony V LaNasa, Jr.
Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, Marc E. Johnson, and Scott U.Schlegel
Relators/Defendants Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. and Louisiana-I Gaming, A Louisiana Partnership in Commendam, seek review of the 24th Judicial District Court's April 3, 2023 judgment denying Pinnacle's motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, we grant the writ application, reverse the district court's judgment, render summary judgment in favor of Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.[1], and dismiss plaintiff Claudette Tull's claims against Pinnacle with prejudice.
On April 13, 2018, at approximately 10:45 p.m., Plaintiff Claudette Tull, slipped and fell on the floor near the BMX eatery in the main hall of Boomtown Casino. Plaintiff filed a petition for damages against Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. D/B/A Boomtown Belle Casino Westbank ("Pinnacle") on February 14, 2019, alleging her fall was caused by water or some other slippery substance on the floor. Plaintiff alleged in her petition that Pinnacle is liable for her damages under Louisiana's Merchant Liability Law, La. R.S. 9:2800.6.
On February 24, 2021, Pinnacle filed a motion for summary judgment. Pinnacle alleged that Plaintiff could not prove that there was any substance on the floor, or, if there were a substance on the floor, how the spill occurred and how long the substance was on the floor. Pinnacle asserted that, based on the undisputed material facts, it cannot be held liable for Plaintiff's alleged damages pursuant to La. R.S 9:2800.6, and that Pinnacle was not a proper party in the case.
In her opposition to Pinnacle's motion for summary judgment, filed on May 31, 2022, Plaintiff noted two genuine issues of material fact were in dispute. Plaintiff averred that she slipped in water and that the back of her legs and clothes were wet with water after she fell. The accident report documents Plaintiff's statement that there was water on the floor, but Monique Jackson, the casino employee who dry-mopped the area after the fall, testified that the only substance she observed on the ground where Plaintiff fell was the grease from the bag of food Plaintiff was carrying. She also questioned whether Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. adhered to the allegedly separate nature of the legal entities it now tries to shield itself with. Plaintiff attached five exhibits in support of her opposition.
Relators filed an Objection and Reply Memorandum to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and objected to admission of Plaintiff's Exhibits C and B. Plaintiff's Exhibit C was an affidavit sworn to by Plaintiff's counsel regarding documents obtained from the Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court's Office. Relators argue that counsel's affidavit was not based on his personal knowledge, and that he is not "competent to testify to such matters". Relators also objected to the admission of the portion of Monique Jackson's deposition wherein she testified that she was employed by Penn National. Relators do not dispute that Penn National is "the ultimate corporate owner" of Boomtown. However, Relators contend that there was no foundation established through Ms. Jackson regarding the corporate structure of Boomtown or its accounting practices, "nor could she know, where the money from her salary actually came from," although Ms. Jackson testified that Penn National "signed her checks."
Relators also pointed out that they do not bear the burden of proof at trial, and argued that the record is devoid of proof that there was a substance on the floor and, if there was a substance on the floor, that Relators knew that the substance was present. Relators urged that Plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence to prove her case pursuant to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, there are no issues of material fact, and movers are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
A hearing on the motion for summary judgment took place on June 16, 2022. The court took the matter under advisement and rendered judgment in favor of Plaintiff on April 3, 2023. In its reasons for judgment, the district court denied Relator's objection to Exhibit B and took judicial notice of Exhibit C - Plaintiff's counsel's affidavit - because the documents referred to therein were public record. The court also observed that evidence showed plaintiff may have encountered an unreasonable risk of harm and Boomtown's knowledge of that unreasonable risk of harm are disputed and reasonable persons could view the evidence presented differently.
In their subsequent writ application, Relators aver that the district court erred when it denied the motion for summary judgment "as there were no genuine issues of material fact, the complained of events were captured on surveillance camera, and it is clear that [Plaintiff] cannot meet her burden of proof at trial."
In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate appellate courts review evidence de novo under the same criteria that govern the trial court's determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Samaha v Rau, 071726 (La. 2/26/08), 977 So.2d 880. A motion for summary judgment is properly granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(A...
To continue reading
Request your trial