Captville et al v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al

Filing 21

RULING granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 17 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 1/11/2012. (CMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JENNIVER CAPTVILLE
AND LISA BEASLEY
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 10-267-JJB-SCR
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
AND MISSISSIPPI MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
a/k/a MMI HOTEL GROUP, INC. d/b/a
HOLIDAY INN BATON ROUGE SOUTH
RULING ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court are motions for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs Jenniver Captville
and Lisa Beasley move for partial summary judgment regarding the negligence and liability of
defendant Mississippi Management Group, Inc., a/k/a MMI Hotel Group, Inc. d/b/a Holiday Inn
Baton Rouge South (“MMI”). (Doc. 17). Defendants MMI and Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company have moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of lost wages sustained by
Captville. (Doc. 15). Captville opposes defendants’ motion (Doc. 19), and defendants filed a
reply brief (Doc. 20). Oral argument is unnecessary. The Court has jurisdiction on the basis of
diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
I. Facts and Procedural Background
On or about April 25, 2009, plaintiffs Captville and Beasley were at the Holiday Inn
South in Baton Rouge attending a conference. (Complaint, Doc. 1-1, ¶ 4) Both women were
seated on a platform which collapsed, causing injuries to both. MMI, the owner and operator of
the Holiday Inn, owned and improperly set up the platform. (Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed
Facts, Doc. 17-3, ¶ 1). MMI employees had set up the platform without training in proper
installation technique. (Id., ¶ 4). The legs of the platform were not properly locked into place,
1

which caused the platform to collapse. (Id., ¶ 6). Had the platform been properly set up with
locking legs, it would not have collapsed. (Id., ¶ 3).
In their complaint for negligence, Captville claims injury to her left shoulder, arm, and
back, among other damages. (Doc. 1-1, ¶ 11). She also claims lost wages. (Id.). Beasley
similarly claims damages for wrist and back injuries along with lost wages and other damages.
(Id., ¶ 12). Each claims an amount of damages in excess of $50,000. (Id., ¶ 13).
The complaint, originally filed in Louisiana state court, was removed to this Court on the
basis of diversity of citizenship. 1

(Doc. 1).

Defendants dispute only whether Captville’s

asserted claim for lost wages more properly belongs to the limited liability company which she
co-owns and operates with her husband. Defendants did not file an opposition to plaintiffs’
motion for partial summary judgment as to liability, and therefore its liability for the injuries
sustained from the platform collapse is established.
II. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact.” Fed. Rule Civ. P. 56(a). The party seeking summary judgment
carries the burden of demonstrating that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). When the burden at
trial rests on the non-moving party, the moving party need only demonstrate that the record lacks
sufficient evidentiary support for the non-moving party’s case. Id. The moving party may do
this by showing that the evidence is insufficient to prove the existence of one or more essential
elements of the non-moving party’s case. Id. A party must support its summary judgment
1

Captville is a Louisiana citizen. Beasley is an Indiana citizen. Liberty Mutual is incorporated in and has its
principal place of business in Massachusetts. MMI is a Mississippi entity principally operating in Mississippi. The
damages claimed, together, exceed $75,000. (See Notice of Removal, Doc. 1).

2

position by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record” or “showing that the materials
cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute.” Fed. Rule Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
Although the Court considers evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party,
the non-moving party must show that there is a genuine issue for trial.

Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). Conclusory allegations and unsubstantiated assertions
will not satisfy the non-moving party’s burden. Grimes v. Tex. Dep’t of Mental Health, 102 F.3d
137, 139-40 (5th Cir. 1996). Similarly, “[u]nsworn pleadings, memoranda or the like are not, of
course, competent summary judgment evidence.” Larry v. White, 929 F.2d 206, 211 n.12 (5th
Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1051. If, once the non-moving party has been given the
opportunity to raise a genuine fact issue, no reasonable juror could find for the non-moving
party, summary judgment will be granted for the moving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
III. Analysis
The sole issue for decision here is whether Captville’s lost wages claim is a personal
action for which she can recover or a derivative action belonging to Trinity Enterprises of Baton
Rouge, LLC, (“Trinity”), a company in which she and her husband are the sole members.
(Interrogatory Answer No. 9, Doc. 19-3, pp. 4-5). Captville’s sole work income comes through
her employment at Trinity. (Id.). Trinity provides cleaning services to residential clients on a
contractual basis. (Captville Deposition, Doc. 15-4, p. 21). Captville claims lost wages of
$25,000 to $35,000. (Interrogatory Answer No. 9, Doc. 19-3, pp. 4-5).
Before evaluating these facts, several principles of Louisiana law bear mentioning. First,
LLCS are distinct juridical persons separate and apart from its members. La. C.C. art. 24; La.
R.S. 12:1303. Second, members of LLCs are not proper parties to proceedings involving the
LLC, except when asserting a claim against the LLC, because the LLC itself can assert its rights
3

in its own name. La. R.S. 12:1320; La. C.C.P. 690. Third, neither corporations nor LLCs have a
cause of action for claims of economic loss based on personal injuries sustained by an employee
or even an owner. James v. Lincoln General Ins. Co., No. 09-0727, 2011 WL 3878339, at **5-6
(W.D. La. Aug. 30, 2011) (discussing cases). The corollary principle is also true—members of
an LLC have no legal interest in pursuing an action when the damages are incurred by the LLC
itself. Wallace v. AeroPremier Jet Center, LLC, No. 10-1136, 2010 WL 3081370, at **2-3 (E.D.
La. Aug. 5, 2010).
In this case, Captville gave deposition answers which arguably show that at least some
portion of her lost wages claim belongs to the LLC itself rather than to her personally. When
examined by defense counsel, she stated in her deposition:
Q: You estimate – you lost, approximately, 25,000 to $35,000 in wages. What
does that figure represent? How did you come up with that number?
A: I have not been able to work my job sites to actually get the contracts going.
Q: So is it that figure represents 25,000 to $30,000 that Trinity Enterprises has
not received pursuant to contracts because of the injuries you sustained in the
accident?
A: I’m not sure if I understand that question.
Q: Well, what I want to know is if that is reflecting money that the … company
didn’t receive under contracts that you would have had to pay employees and
everything like that and subsequently yourself, or is that a figure that represents
what you would have paid yourself after all other expenses had been paid? What
I want to know in particular, is that a wage as it pertains to you, 25,000 to 35,000
lost or money that would have gone to Trinity which would have subsequently
allowed you to pay other expenses and ultimately yourself at the end of the day?
A: Moneys that would have gone to Trinity.
(Captville Deposition, Doc. 15-4, pp. 36-37).
When her own attorney examined her, she responded differently:
Q: [W]hen you got the interrogatories, … you tried to make an estimate of what
you thought you lost in income; is that correct?
A: Yes.
4

Q: Were you making that estimate based on your belief that had you been more
involved in the business, that Trinity would have actually made more money?
A: Absolutely, yes.
Q: If Trinity had made more money, you would, in fact, be in a position to pay
yourself an additional salary?
A: Yes.
Q: And you were not in a position to do that because it didn’t make money; is
that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: Was your estimate of the amount that you would have actually been paid
additionally between 25 to $35,000?
***
A: That’s what I would have been paid.
(Id., pp. 77-78).
When she was again questioned by defense counsel as to why her answer changed, she
responded:
A: What has changed would be trying to be more precise in answering the
question, have a better understanding of the formatting of the question.
Q: So your testimony is that the 25 to $30,000 is not money that Trinity missed
out on because of lost contracts, that is money that you would have paid yourself
after Trinity received its money; is that correct?
A: That’s a pretty good approximation.
Given this conflicting testimony, the Court finds genuine disputes of material fact remain
on the issue of lost wages. It is certainly unclear how Captville can claim that amount of money
as lost wages when she stated in her deposition that she only made $3,000 in 2010, but that
matter seems best suited for cross examination at trial.
The bottom line is that the parties appear to be talking at cross purposes. Defendants
want summary judgment “to the extent her wage claim contains losses attributable to the LLC
and not her individually.” (Memo. in Support, Doc. 15-3, p. 6). That is fair enough, but appears
5

to be styled more in the manner of a declaratory judgment on an issue of law than a summary
judgment. Defendants “further move to exclude recovery for loss of income, gross and/or net, of
Trinity Enterprises, LLC.” Again, this is not disputed. Captville, worrying that this motion
would jeopardize her entire lost wages claim, accuses defendants of attempting “to elevate a
dispute in the facts over how much the gross revenues of Trinity Enterprises, LLC decreased,
which in turn had an impact on how much income Ms. Captville loss, [sic] into an argument that
Ms. Captville’s loss of income is actually a claim for the losses suffered by the company.”
(Memo. in Opp., Doc. 19, p. 4).
Captville is certainly correct that the source of her income and ownership of her employer
play no role in whether she is eligible to recover lost wages. The Court is also convinced that
just because her income derives from an entity she partially owns is also immaterial. To hold
otherwise would arbitrarily penalize small business owners simply because they availed
themselves of a particular corporate form and employed themselves, penalties which would
surely run contrary to Louisiana public policy and the purpose behind sanctioning limited
liability companies.
The Court has simply not been apprised of facts showing “the lost wage claim of
$25,000-30,000 is money attributable to Trinity Enterprises, LLC and not to plaintiff
individually.” (Defendants’ Statement of Uncontested Facts, Doc. 15-2, ¶ 4). Because nothing
in the record conclusively establishes or refutes her claim for lost wages or the amount thereof,
the Court declines to do so now. Because defendants admit liability for Captville’s injuries and
do not contest either that she was previously employed or that her injuries hindered her ability to
work, presumably she is entitled to some amount of lost wages, subject to the usual caveats such
as mitigation that go along with proving damages. Documentary evidence provided at trial,
6

rather than the imprecise deposition testimony quoted in this motion, will put the jury in a better
position to evaluate defendants’ argument.
IV. Conclusion; Order
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defendants’ motion for
partial summary judgment (Doc. 15). Losses attributable to Trinity Enterprises, LLC, cannot be
recovered by Captville in this action, but lost wages attributable to Captville personally are
recoverable in this action. The precise amount of lost wages is a matter for the jury to resolve.
Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 17) is GRANTED.
Defendant MMI Hotel Group, Inc. is liable to plaintiffs for their injuries suffered as a result of
the platform collapse.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on January 11, 2012.





JAMES J. BRADY, DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA



7