Thomas v. KFC Corporation et al
Filing
49
ORDER AND REASONS: Denying 47 Motion for Summary Judgment as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/30/2019. (ajn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRENDA THOMAS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 18-1264
KFC CORPORATION, ET AL.
SECTION: "A" (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
The following motion is before the Court: Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec.
Doc. 47) filed by Defendants, West Quality Food Service, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Fire
Insurance Co. Plaintiff, Brenda Thomas, opposes the motion. The motion, submitted for
consideration on April 17, 2019, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
Plaintiff Brenda Thomas filed this lawsuit against Defendants contending that she
suffered physical and mental injury after consuming a sandwich containing a fried rat.
Plaintiff claims that the product was purchased at the KFC on Bullard Avenue in New
Orleans.
Defendants have filed the instant motion for summary judgment essentially
contending that certain evidence contradicts Plaintiff’s version of events. The clear
message to be gleaned from Defendants’ motion is that they believe that Plaintiff has
fabricated a claim against them.
This matter is scheduled to be tried to a jury on November 4, 2019. (Rec. Doc.
45).
Summary judgment is appropriate only if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to
Page 1 of 3
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," when viewed
in the light most favorable to the non-movant, "show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact." TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick James, 276 F.3d 754, 759 (5th Cir. 2002)
(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)). A dispute about a
material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the non-moving party. Id. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). The court must
draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Id. (citing Anderson, 477
U.S. at 255). Once the moving party has initially shown "that there is an absence of
evidence to support the non-moving party's cause," Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 325 (1986), the non-movant must come forward with "specific facts" showing a
genuine factual issue for trial. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Matsushita Elec. Indus.
Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). Conclusional allegations and denials,
speculation, improbable inferences, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic
argumentation do not adequately substitute for specific facts showing a genuine issue
for trial. Id. (citing SEC v. Recile, 10 F.3d 1093, 1097 (5th Cir. 1993)).
When faced with a well-supported motion for summary judgment, Rule 56 places
the burden on the non-movant to designate the specific facts in the record that create
genuine issues precluding summary judgment. Jones .v Sheehan, Young, & Culp, P.C.,
82 F.3d 1334, 1338 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court has no duty to survey the entire
record in search of evidence to support a non-movant’s position. Id. (citing Forsyth v.
Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1992); Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300,
1307 (5th Cir. 1988)).
Page 2 of 3
The Court is persuaded that Plaintiff’s opposition memorandum accurately
characterizes Defendants’ motion as one that seeks to have this Court resolve conflicts
in the evidence to Plaintiff’s detriment. The trier of fact must resolve any conflicts in the
evidence. This Court cannot appropriately usurp that role in conjunction with ruling on a
motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 47) filed
by Defendants West Quality Food Service, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. is
DENIED.
April 30, 2019
_______________________________
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 3 of 3
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?