Crisostomoa v. Target Corporation
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 28 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
VERONICA J. CRISOSTOMO aka
VERONICA J. TAYLOR,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00422-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant.
INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 28).
Crisostomo represents herself pro se in this matter. Therefore, the Court notified
Crisostomo of the summary judgment motion, along with an explanation of her right to
respond to the motion. However, the time for responding to the motion has passed, and
Crisostomo has not responded. Accordingly, the Court will address the motion for
summary judgment based solely on Target’s brief and supporting documents.
BACKGROUND
Crisostomo filed her complaint in Idaho state court, but the case was removed to
this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. The complaint asserts a sole count of
negligence. That claim alleges that Crisostomo crashed while riding one of Target’s store
scooters at a Target store in Ammon, Idaho. Crisostomo claims she crashed because the
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
scooter was defective. In January 2018, Crisostomo’s attorney asked to withdraw as
counsel for Crisostomo, and the Court granted the motion. Although the Court gave
Crisostomo additional time to retain new counsel, she failed to do so. Target then filed its
motion for summary judgment, and Crisostomo failed to respond.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate where a party can show that, as to any claim or
defense, “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). One of the principal purposes of the
summary judgment “is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims . . . .”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). It is “not a disfavored procedural
shortcut,” but is instead the “principal tool[ ] by which factually insufficient claims or
defenses [can] be isolated and prevented from going to trial with the attendant
unwarranted consumption of public and private resources.” Id. at 327. “[T]he mere
existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise
properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). There must be a genuine dispute as to any material fact – a fact
“that may affect the outcome of the case.” Id. at 248.
The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
and the Court must not make credibility findings. Id. at 255. Direct testimony of the
non-movant must be believed, however implausible. Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d
1152, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999). On the other hand, the Court is not required to adopt
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
unreasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence. McLaughlin v. Liu, 849 F.2d
1205, 1208 (9th Cir. 1988).
The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a
genuine dispute as to material fact. Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir.
2001)(en banc). To carry this burden, the moving party need not introduce any
affirmative evidence (such as affidavits or deposition excerpts) but may simply point out
the absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. Fairbank v. Wunderman
Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 532 (9th Cir.2000).
This shifts the burden to the non-moving party to produce evidence sufficient to
support a jury verdict in her favor. Deveraux, 263 F.3d at 1076. The non-moving party
must go beyond the pleadings and show “by her [ ] affidavits, or by the depositions,
answers to interrogatories, or admissions on file” that a genuine dispute of material fact
exists. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.
ANALYSIS
Target contends the scooter was not defective, and it has produced evidence to that
effect. The declarations of the Target store manager and other employees establish that
the scooter was tested shortly after the alleged incident, and no defects were found. See
Francis Decl., Dkt. 28-2; Schreibeis Decl., Dkt. 28-3; Warren Decl., Dkt. 28-4. The
scooter was test driven by several employees, and there were no malfunctions. Id. The
scooter was returned to service within a few days of the incident in April 2016, and it has
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
been problem-free since. Crisostomo has provided no contrary evidence from either an
expert or lay witness.
Under these circumstances, Target has met its initial burden of demonstrating the
absence of a genuine dispute as to material fact. Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070,
1076 (9th Cir. 2001)(en banc). As explained above, to carry this burden, Target need not
introduce any affirmative evidence (such as affidavits or deposition excerpts) but may
simply point out the absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.
Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 532 (9th Cir.2000). The burden
therefore shifts to Crisostomo, but she has not produced any evidence to create a genuine
issue of material fact on whether the scooter was defective, or to support a jury verdict in
her favor. Deveraux, 263 F.3d at 1076. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of
Target is warranted.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 28) is GRANTED.
2.
The Court will enter a separate judgment in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
58.
DATED: July 30, 2018
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U.S. District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?