Cassidy v. Golden Nugget Lake Charles, L L C et al

Filing 79

MEMORANDUM RULING denying 73 Motion to Strike Subsection (C) to 72 Reply to Response to Motion. It is further ordered that plaintiff may file an opposition limited to those issues addressed in Subsection C of Golden Nugget's Reply Memorandum on or before May 14, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay on 5/7/2018. (crt,Crick, S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

PHILIP CASSIDY

:

VERSUS

:

GOLDEN NUGGET LAKE
CHARLES CASINO, LLC, ET AL

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1570

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the court is a Motion to Strike Subsection (C) of Defendant’s Reply Memorandum
in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed by plaintiff Philip Cassidy. Doc.
73. The Motion is opposed by defendant Golden Nugget Lake Charles, LLC (“Golden Nugget”).
Doc. 75. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed suit against Golden Nugget claiming damages based on three theories of
liability; (1) vicarious liability or respondeat superior, (2) negligent hiring and/or retention of an
employee, and (3) failure to provide adequate security, failure to train security, and/or failure to
diffuse a dangerous situation. Doc. 1, att. 1. Golden Nugget filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
that is currently pending before the court. Doc. 44. It moves for “summary judgment in its favor
and for the dismissal of the plaintiff’s causes of action against it, with prejudice . . . . ” Id. In its
memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment Golden Nugget argues that summary
judgment should be granted dismissing plaintiff’s claims of vicarious liability and negligent hiring
and/or supervision. Doc. 44, att. 1. This memorandum does not address plaintiff’s claim for failure
to provide adequate security, failure to train, or failure to diffuse the situation.
-1-

In his response memorandum in opposition plaintiff notes that Golden Nugget does not
address these claims and states that these additional claims are “not subject to the Motion for
Summary Judgment.” Doc. 68, p. 12, n.11 (emphasis original). Golden Nugget, in its reply
memorandum, specifically in Subsection C, addresses plaintiff’s third theory of liability, argues
that plaintiff has failed to set forth any facts or evidence that would establish a cause of action
under this theory of recovery, and concludes that this claim should also be dismissed. Doc. 72,
pp. 7-8.
Plaintiff now moves to strike Subsection C of Golden Nugget’s reply memorandum
arguing that Golden Nugget’s motion fails to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7 and
56 in that it does not state with specificity each and every claim upon which it seeks dismissal.
Plaintiff further asserts that considering an argument for the first time in a reply memorandum
would be unfair to the plaintiff because he would not have an opportunity to respond.
II.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Rule 7 provides, generally, that any motion must “state with particularity the grounds for
seeking the order” and “the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7. Rule 56 governs motions for
summary judgment and states, in part, that “[a] party may move for summary judgment, identifying
each claim or defense–or the part of each claim or defense–on which summary judgment is
sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
Golden Nugget’s motion for summary judgment [doc. 44] clearly indicates that it is seeking
dismissal of all of plaintiff’s causes of action. We note that it did not move for a partial summary
judgment and while we cannot speculate on why it did not address the failure to provide adequate
security, failure to train, and/or failure to diffuse the situation claims in the original memorandum
in support, the motion makes it clear that it is seeking dismissal from the lawsuit in its entirety.
-2-

We recognize that plaintiff has not had an opportunity to file a memorandum opposing
summary judgment on the above grounds and will grant him until May 14, 2018 to file any
opposition before the motion is considered.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Subsection (C) of Defendant’s Reply
Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#73] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff may file an opposition limited to those issues
addressed in Subsection C of Golden Nugget’s Reply Memorandum on or before May 14, 2018.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers this 7th day of May, 2018.

-3-