Wilson v. HH Savannah, LLC

• Decision Date: 26 September 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 4:20-cv-217
• Parties: KELLY WILSON, Plaintiff, v. HH SAVANNAH, LLC; HHC TRS SAVANNAH, LLC; HYATT CORPORATION, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

KELLY WILSON, Plaintiff, v. HH SAVANNAH, LLC; HHC TRS SAVANNAH, LLC; HYATT CORPORATION, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-217

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division

September 26, 2022

ORDER

R STAN BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presently before the Court is Defendants HH Savannah, LLC (“HH”), HHC TRS Savannah, LLC (“HHC”), and Hyatt Corporation's (“Hyatt”) Motion for Summary Judgment.^[1](Doc. 60.) This case arises from a slip and fall that occurred at the Hyatt Regency Savannah Hotel (the “Hotel”) when Plaintiff Kelly Wilson stepped out of the shower in her room. (See doc. 60, p. 2; doc 66, p. 1; see also generally doc. 46.) Plaintiff alleges that her fall was caused by Defendants' negligence and seeks to hold Defendants liable for the injuries she sustained when she fell. (Doc. 46.) Defendants filed the at-issue Motion for Summary Judgment, relying on various affirmative defenses and arguing, inter alia, that Plaintiff has failed to create a genuine dispute of fact regarding whether Defendants had knowledge of any hazardous condition. (Doc. 60.) Plaintiff filed a Response, (doc. 65), and Defendants filed a Reply, (doc. 69). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Motion. (Doc. 60.)

BACKGROUND

I. Admissions of Fact Set Forth in Defendants' Statement of Material Facts

Before setting forth the factual background, the Court must address Defendants' argument that the facts set forth in their Statement of Material Facts (“SMF”) must be deemed admitted because Plaintiff failed to dispute them. (See doc. 69, pp. 2-5.) Southern District of Georgia Local Rule 56.1 (“L.R. 56.1”) requires a party moving for summary judgment to file, “in addition to the brief, . . . a separate, short, and concise statement of the material facts as to which it is contended there exists no genuine dispute to be tried as well as any conclusions of law thereof.” S.D. Ga. Local Rule 56.1. Under L.R. 56.1, “[e]ach statement of material fact shall be supported by a citation to the record.” Id. Pursuant to L.R. 56.1, Defendants filed a SMF in conjunction with their Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting brief. (Doc. 61.) Defendants' SMF complies with L.R. 56.1 because each statement of fact includes a citation to the record. (See id. at pp. 110.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) requires “[a] party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed [to] support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 56(e), “[i]f a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of facts as required by Rule 56(c),” the Court may “consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Moreover, this Court's Local Rule 56.1 provides that “[a]ll material facts set forth in the statement [of material fact] required to be served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by a statement served by the opposing party.” L.R. 56.1 (emphasis added).

Here, pursuant to L.R. 56.1, Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 65), as well as a stand-alone document titled, “Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' . . . [SMF]” (“Plaintiff's SMF Response”), (doc. 66). Defendants argue that Plaintiff's attempts to dispute certain facts set forth in Defendants' SMF “are lacking . . . and . . . should be deemed admitted,” and that their Motion “should be granted on this basis alone.” (Doc. 69, pp. 2-3; see id. at pp. 4-5.) Defendants are correct that some of the denials in Plaintiff s SMF Response violate Rule 56(c) because they are not supported with a citation to pertinent portions of the record. (See doc. 66, ¶¶ 11, 14-16); see Allen v. United States, No. 1:15-cv-147, 2018 WL 934895, at *1 n.2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 16, 2018) (“[Generalized denials, provided without citations to particular parts of materials in the record, are insufficient to satisfy [Rule 56(c)].”); see also Futch v. Chatham Cnty. Det. Ctr., No. 4:10-cv-192, 2012 WL 1557336, at *2 (S.D. Ga. May 2, 2012) (“Where the party responding to a summary judgment motion does not directly refute a material fact set forth in the movant's Statement of Material Facts with specific citations to evidence, or otherwise fails to state a valid objection to the material fact pursuant to [Local Rules], such fact is deemed admitted by the respondent.”) (quoting Mann v. Taser Int'l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1302 (11th Cir. 2009)). For example, Paragraphs 11 and 16 of Plaintiff's SMF Response merely state that “Plaintiff's testimony speaks for itself,” and Paragraphs 14-16 contend, without citing to any evidence, that there is a fact question as to whether the water accumulated on Plaintiff's bathroom floor while she showered. (See doc. 66, ¶¶ 11, 14-16.) Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56(e), the Court will deem undisputed the facts which correspond to Plaintiff's denials that are not supported with citation to the record.

Notwithstanding the fact that many of the matters set forth in Defendants' SMF may be considered undisputed, the Court declines Defendants' request to deem admitted the entirety of their SMF. “[Statements of fact may be deemed true only so far as they are supported by the evidentiary materials . . . .” Osborn v. Whites & Assocs. Inc., No. 1:20-cv-02528-TWT-AJB, 2021 WL 6113656, at *2 n.3 (N.D.Ga. Nov. 16, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:20-CV-2528-TWT, 2021 WL 6113625 (N.D.Ga. Dec. 3, 2021) (citing United States v. One Piece of Real Prop. Located at 5800 SW 74th Ave., 363 F.3d 1099, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004)). Problematically, certain facts set forth in Defendants' SMF are not supported by the evidentiary materials cited therein. As discussed in Note 4, infra, Paragraph 19 of Defendants' SMF, which contends that “Plaintiff's Hotel bathroom was inspected and cleaned by housekeeping prior to her arrival,” relies on speculative, inconsistent testimony. (Doc. 61, p. 7 (quoting doc. 60-8, pp. 31, 37).) Additionally, Paragraph 18 mischaracterizes the testimony cited in support of the purported fact that “[i]n the two years prior to Plaintiff's fall, there had only been two other falls in all of the Hotel bathrooms.”^[2] (Id. (quoting doc. 60-8, pp. 8-9).) Moreover, even if the Court were to deem admitted the entirety of Defendants' SMF, Defendants would not be, as they contend, entitled to summary judgment on this basis alone. “[A]fter deeming the movant's statement of undisputed facts to be admitted . . ., the district court must [still] review the movant's citations to the record to determine if there is, indeed, no genuine issue of material fact.” Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1269 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted). Indeed, the Court “must make an independent review of the record before deciding” a motion for summary judgment. United States v. Delbridge, No. 1:06-CV-110 (WLS), 2008 WL 1869867, at *3 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 22, 2008).

This is true even where a motion for summary judgment is deemed wholly unopposed. See United States v. One Piece of Real Prop. Located at 5800 SW 74th Ave., 363 F.3d 1099, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004); see also Mann, 588 F.3d 1303. Accordingly, the Court declines to grant summary judgment merely because some of Plaintiff's denials are insufficient, and the Court will instead address the merits of Defendants' Motion.

II. Factual Background

A. Identity of Defendants and their Relationship to the Hotel

This case involves a fall that occurred on March 28, 2018, at the Hotel. (See generally doc. 46.) When the fall occurred, HH owned the real property where the Hotel was located, although it did not operate or manage the Hotel. (Doc. 61, p. 1; doc. 66, p. 1.) HH leased the Hotel to Defendant HHC, which contracted with Defendant Hyatt to manage and operate the services at the Hotel. (Doc. 61, p. 2; doc. 66, p. 1.) While Hyatt contracted with a hospitality company, Hospitality Staffing Solutions, LLC (“Hospitality”) (which is not a party to this lawsuit), to provide cleaning and janitorial services inside the Hotel, Hyatt alone was responsible for the Hotel's dayto-day operations. (Doc. 61, p. 2; doc. 66, p. 1; see also doc. 60-3, pp. 13-14.)

B. Plaintiff's Fall

On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff traveled to the Hotel to attend a company retreat. (Doc. 61, p. 2; doc. 66, p. 1.) Plaintiff checked into her room mid-morning and left shortly thereafter to eat lunch and attend a team-building activity. (Doc. 61, p. 2; doc. 66, p. 1.) Later that evening, Plaintiff returned from dinner and decided to take a shower before retiring to bed. (Doc. 61, p. 2; doc. 66, p. 1.) This was the first time Plaintiff used the shower in her room, which was a “walkin” style with a sliding glass door and a small step up to enter. (Doc. 61, pp. 2-3; doc. 66, p. 1; doc. 60-4, pp. 30, 32.)

Plaintiff testified that she placed a towel on the floor in front of the shower and, before turning on the water, stepped in the shower on the side opposite the shower head and adjacent toilet. (Doc. 60, pp. 2-3; doc. 66, p. 1; see doc. 60-4, pp. 30-32.) According to Plaintiff she completely closed the glass doors, turned to the left to face the shower head-which was below the top of the glass door-and turned on the water. (Doc. 61, p. 3; doc. 66, p. 1; doc. 60-4, pp. 32-34.) Plaintiff testified that water “was coming out normal like it would in the shower,” but also was “spewing” from the shower head in a leftward direction towards the glass door. (Doc. 60-4, p. 33.) Plaintiff stated that the water trailing off to the left side was a “constant,” “medium stream,” although she did not notice if it was ...