Crawford v. Hyatt Corporation et al

Filing 43

ORDER - Plaintiff Millicent Crawford's unopposed 39 Motion for Relief Under Rule 56(d) is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Hyatt Corporation, Ares Management Group, LLC, Hyatt Louisiana, LLC, and Western World Insurance Company 38 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Chief Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 4/22/19. (sbs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MILLICENT CRAWFORD

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 18-3847

HYATT CORPORATION, et al.

SECTION: “G”(3)
ORDER

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff Millicent Crawford’s (“Plaintiff”) unopposed
“Motion for Relief Under Rule 56(d).”1 Plaintiff requests that the Court grant her additional time
to complete discovery before ruling on Defendants’ Hyatt Corporation, Ares Management Group,
LLC, Hyatt Louisiana, LLC, and Western World Insurance Company (collectively, “Defendants”)
“Motion for Summary Judgment.”2
Plaintiff’s pending motion was filed on January 29, 2019 and set for submission on
February 13, 2019.3 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, any opposition to a motion must be filed eight
days before the noticed submission date. Defendants have filed no opposition to the motion, and
therefore, the motion is deemed to be unopposed. This Court has authority to grant a motion that
is unopposed, although it is not required to do so.4 District courts may grant an unopposed motion
as long as the motion has merit.5

1

Rec. Doc. 39.

2

Rec. Doc. 38.

3

Id.

4

Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 356 (5th Cir. 1993).

5

See Braly v. Trail, 254 F.3d 1082 (5th Cir. 2001).

1

In the instant motion, Plaintiff argues that the Court should deny or defer decision on
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because discovery is ongoing and she requires
additional time to gather facts necessary to support her opposition.6 Plaintiff asserts that the
Scheduling Order’s deadline to complete discovery is July 30, 2019, so Defendants’ motion is
premature.7 Plaintiff alleges that her deposition has been taken and she and Defendants have
exchanged one set of written discovery, but written discovery remains outstanding with Defendant
The Service Companies (“TSC”), as TSC was not added as a defendant in the matter until
September 14, 2018.8 Plaintiff also alleges that she is still attempting to schedule two depositions
with former employees of TSC, but defense counsel has been unresponsive.9
Because of the ongoing discovery, Plaintiff avers that she should be afforded additional
time to respond to Defendants’ motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).10
Plaintiff argues that though she cannot at this time present facts essential to justify her opposition,
additional discovery would elucidate several key issues raised in Defendants’ motion.11 In
particular, Plaintiff believes the depositions of Arieon Burnett and Byron Grant will “establish
actual or constructive notice of the spill by defendants through their agents or employees.” 12
Plaintiff also contends that additional written discovery may reveal who was the source of the spill
that caused Plaintiff’s alleged fall.13 Therefore, Plaintiff urges the Court to deny or defer decision

6

Rec. Doc. 39-1 at 1.

7

Id.

8

Id. at 2.

9

Id. at 1–2.

10

Id.

11

Id. at 2–3.

12

Id. at 3.

13

Id.

2

on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and allow her additional time to complete the
aforementioned discovery.14 In support of this motion, Plaintiff presents a declaration of her
attorney, Nicholas Linder, stating that additional time is needed “to conduct discovery in order to
ascertain necessary facts to justify plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment.”15
Pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a nonmovant shows by
affidavit or declaration that “it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition” to a motion
for summary judgment, the Court may: “(1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time
to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.”
Rule 56(d) “provides a mechanism for dealing with the problem of premature summary judgment
motions.”16 Rule 56(d) “allows for further discovery to safeguard non-moving parties from
summary judgment motions that they cannot adequately oppose.”17 “Such motions are broadly
favored and should be liberally granted.”18
In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants argue that they are not liable to Plaintiff
because she cannot show that they had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition that
allegedly caused Plaintiff’s injuries.19 Specifically, Defendants contend that there is “no evidence
of actual knowledge,” and Plaintiff cannot prove constructive knowledge because she does not

14

Id.

15

Rec. Doc. 39-3 at 1.

16

State Farm Fire & Cas., Co. v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 10-1922, 2011 WL 3567466, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2011)
(citing Parakkavetty v. Indus Int'l, Inc., 2004 WL 354317, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb.12, 2004) (citing Owens v. Estate of
Erwin, 968 F.Supp. 320, 322 (N.D.Tex. 1997))).
17

Culwell v. City of Fort Worth, 468 F.3d 868, 871 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Washington v. Allstate Ins. Co., 901 F.2d
1281, 1285 (5th Cir.1990)).
18

Id. (citing Int'l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1267 (5th Cir. 1991)).

19

Rec. Doc. 38-1 at 5.

3

have evidence of how long the alleged liquid was on the floor. 20 In response, Plaintiff avers that
she cannot properly oppose the motion until she conducts additional written discovery and is able
to depose TSC’s employees regarding their knowledge of the spill.21
Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief Under Rule 56(d) or
presented any evidence to contradict Plaintiff’s assertion that she cannot adequately oppose
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment without conducting additional discovery. Thus, this
Court finds that Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Relief Under Rule 56(d) has merit. Pursuant to
Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment without prejudice to allow the parties additional time to conduct discovery.
The Court notes that, pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order, the parties have until July 30, 2019
to complete discovery, and any non-evidentiary pretrial motions must be filed in sufficient time to
permit hearing thereon no later than August 14, 2019.22
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Millicent Crawford’s unopposed “Motion for
Relief Under Rule 56(d)”23 is GRANTED.

20

Id. at 5–8.

21

Rec. Doc. 39-1.

22

Rec. Doc. 36.

23

Rec. Doc. 39.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Hyatt Corporation, Ares Management
Group, LLC, Hyatt Louisiana, LLC, and Western World Insurance Company “Motion for
Summary Judgment24 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

22nd
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this _____ day of April, 2019.

_________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

24

Rec. Doc. 38.

5