Grimball v. New Orleans City et al
Filing
51
ORDER & REASONS denying 50 Motion for Default Judgment as to Prime Restaurant Group of New Orleans, LLC. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 7/24/12. (sek, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GRIMBALL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 10-3657
NEW ORLEANS CITY, ET AL.
SECTION: "J” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before
the
Court
is
Plaintiff
Renaldo
Grimball
(“Mr.
Grimball’s) Motion for Default Judgment as to Prime Restaurant
Group of New Orleans, LLC (Rec. Doc. 50). Plaintiff’s motion is
unopposed, and it is set for hearing on the briefs without oral
argument on July 18, 2012. Having considered the motion, the
record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
motion should be DENIED for the reasons set forth more fully
below.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND FACTS
This action arises out of claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
independent state law tort claims for assault and battery. On
October 16, 2010, plaintiff Renaldo Grimball filed suit in this
Court, naming as defendants the City of New Orleans, the New
1
Orleans Police Department, Sean West, Prime Restaurant Group of
New Orleans, LLC, Aaron Hagman, and John Doe, the hypothetical
supervisors of defendant Sean West. (Rec. Doc. 1) Mr. Grimball’s
complaint
alleges
that
while
working
at
his
then
place
of
employment, U.S. Prime Steakhouse, his manager Aaron Hagman (“Mr.
Hagman”), and New Orleans Police Officer Sean West (“Officer
West”) conspired to falsely accuse plaintiff of smoking marijuana
on the job, and to assault and humiliate plaintiff under the
guise of enforcing criminal drug laws. (Rec. Doc. 1, pp. 4-6)
Specifically, plaintiff claims that after being prompted by Mr.
Hagman,
Officer
forcefully
plaintiff
pushed
while
West
pointed
plaintiff
Mr.
Hagman
his
against
gun
at
the
gathered
plaintiff’s
freezer,
the
and
employees
head,
frisked
of
the
restaurant to watch. (Rec. Doc. 1, pp. 4-6) Plaintiff’s complaint
alleges that as a result of Mr. Hagman and Officer West’s actions
he
suffered
embarrassment,
emotional
distress,
anxiety,
and
physical injury to his back and shoulders. (Rec. Doc. 1, p. 5)
Plaintiff served defendant Prime Restaurant Group of New Orleans
(“Prime”) with the complaint on February 9, 2011. (Rec. Doc. 6)
To date, Prime has filed no responsive pleadings, and on December
21, 2011, the Clerk of Court entered default against Prime. (Rec.
Doc. 29) On June 27, 2012, the plaintiff filed the instant motion
2
requesting that a default judgment be entered as to Prime (Rec.
Doc. 50). Plaintiff’s suit against the City of New Orleans, the
New Orleans Police Department, and Officer West is still pending
in this Court.
THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff argues that default judgment should be entered
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. Plaintiff asserts that
as the requisite amount of time has passed since the Clerk’s
Entry of Default, it is appropriate for the Court to enter a
default judgment against Prime. Specifically, plaintiff notes
that he is seeking tort claims for assault and battery against
Prime under the tort doctrine of respondeat superior. Plaintiff
argues that a review of Louisiana case law indicates that he is
owed
$10,000
in
damages
for
the
embarrassment,
emotional
distress, anxiety, and physical injury that he suffered. (Rec.
Doc. 50-1, pp. 6-7) Additionally, plaintiff claims that he is
owed $1870.50 in lost wages for the two months that he was
unemployed as a result of leaving his job at Prime after the
alleged incident. (Rec. Doc. 50-1, p. 7) Plaintiff reaches this
figure by assuming that he was paid at the federal minimum wage
of $7.25 per hour and working an average of thirty (30) hours per
week for 8.6 weeks. (Rec. Doc. 50-1, p. 7)
3
DISCUSSION
Entry of default judgment lies within the discretion of the
district
court.
Lewis
v.
Lynn,
236
F.3d
766,
767
(5th
Cir.
2001)(citing Mason v. Lister, 562 F.2d 343, 345 (5th Cir.1977)).
A party is not entitled to default judgment as a matter of right,
even where the defendant is technically in default. Lewis, 236
F.3d at 767(citing Ganther v. Ingle, 75 F.3d 207, 212 (5th Cir.
1996)). Default judgments are a drastic remedy, not favored by
the Federal Rules and resorted to by courts only in extreme
situations. Id. at 767 (citing Sun Bank of Oscala v. Pelican
Homestead
and
Savings
Ass'n.,
874
F.2d
274,
276
(5th
Cir.
1989)).If the possibility exits that entry of default judgment
against one defendant risks inconsistency with a later judgment
concerning the other defendants in the action, judgment should
not be entered against that defendant until the matter has been
adjudicated with regard to all defendants. See Frow v. De La
Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872).
The Court finds that a default judgment against Prime is not
appropriate
against
the
at
the
City
current
of
New
time.
Because
Orleans,
the
plaintiff’s
New
Orleans
claims
Police
Department, and Officer West are still on-going, entry of a
default judgment against Prime would be premature. In particular,
4
Officer
West
is
alleged
to
have
acted
with
the
defaulted
defendant’s employee to cause the same damages. However, the
claims against Officer West and the above-named defendants have
not been adjudicated. A contrary determination upon adjudication
of
those
claims
could
result
in
inconsistent
judgments.
Therefore, the Court elects not to enter a default judgment at
this time. The Court notes, however, that should plaintiff be
successful in his action against the non-defaulting defendants,
the
judgment
for
the
plaintiff
will
be
entered
as
to
the
defaulting defendant as well.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s
motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 24th day of July, 2012.
____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?