Parfait et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting as unopposed 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 9/19/11. (tsf, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GERARD PARFAIT and
MARIE PARFAIT

CIVIL ACTION

v.

NO. 11-666

WAL-MART STORES, INC.
and WAL-MART LOUISIANA, LLC

SECTION "F"
ORDER

Local Rule 7.5 of the Eastern District of Louisiana requires
that memoranda in opposition to a motion be filed eight days prior
to the noticed submission date.

No memoranda in opposition to the

defendants’ motion for summary judgment, noticed for submission on
September 21, 2011, has been submitted.
Accordingly,

the

motion

is

deemed

to

be

unopposed,

and

further, it appearing to the Court that the motion has merit,1 IT
1

The defendants have shown that the plaintiffs cannot
prove the essential elements of their claim. As the defendants
point out, there is no evidence in the record that suggests that
the pallet jack was defective, or that Wal-Mart knew or should have
known of a defect in the jack. Because the defendants have carried
their summary judgement burden in showing that the plaintiffs
cannot prove the required elements of custodial liability as
mandated by Louisiana Civil Code articles 2317 and 2317.1, the
defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The plaintiffs have failed to oppose the defendants’
motion, or to submit any evidence showing that the jack was
defective, or that the defendants had notice of the alleged defect.
Indeed, the defendants submit that Mr. Parfait admits in his own
deposition that Wal-Mart did not know of a problem with the jack.
“‘A complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of
the non-moving party’s case necessarily renders all other fact
immaterial’ and ‘mandates the entry of summary judgment’ for the
1

IS ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED

as

unopposed.

The

plaintiffs’

claims

against

the

defendants are hereby dismissed.

New Orleans, Louisiana, September 19, 2011

______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

moving party.” United States ex rel. v. City of Houston, 523 F.3d
333, 337 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986)).
2