Simpson v. Clobanu et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 29 MOTION for Clarification. Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 8/30/2018. (JLC)

FILED
2018 Aug-30 AM 09:03
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEIRSTON SIMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEY LINE SOLUTION INC., and
GHEORGHE CIOBANU,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-CV-00291-KOB

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on Defendants Key Line Solutions, Inc. and Gheorghe
Ciobanu’s “Motion for Clarification of Memorandum Opinion.” (Doc. 29). On August 7, 2018,
this court filed a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff Keirston Simpson’s motion
for partial summary judgment and denying in part and granting in part Defendants’ motion for
partial summary judgment. (Doc. 27). Defendants now seek clarification regarding this court’s
partial denial of Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s wantonness
claim.
Defendants contend that the court used a “substantial evidence standard” instead of the
“clear and convincing evidence” standard in determining that Plaintiff presented a genuine issue
of material fact as to wantonness. (Doc. 29 at 2). The court surmises that Defendants confused
the standard for summary judgment. The court cannot apply a substantial evidence standard or a
clear and convincing evidence standard at the summary judgment stage, but merely determines if
a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255
(1986).

In the Memorandum Opinion, this court clearly stated that it “must not weigh the
evidence and make credibility determinations because these decisions belong to a jury.” (Doc. 27
at 4). The court used this standard in analyzing Plaintiff’s wantonness claim, in which the court
found that “a jury could reasonably determine that Defendants engaged in wanton conduct.” (Id.
at 8). Because the court applied the correct legal standard to Defendants’ motion for partial
summary judgment, the court need not clarify its Memorandum Opinion.
For the reasons discussed above, the court DENIES Defendants Key Line Solutions, Inc.
and Gheorghe Ciobanu’s motion for clarification.
DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of August, 2018.

____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE