Allen v. Royal Trucking Co et al
Filing
197
MEMORANDUM RULING re 179 MOTION to Strike Declaration Attached as Exhibit B to 167 Memorandum in Opposition filed by Kansas City Southern, Kansas City Southern Railway Co, 168 MOTION to Strike References in 142 MOTION for Sum mary Judgment filed by Royal Trucking Co, 142 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Kansas City Southern, Kansas City Southern Railway Co. Signed by Chief Judge S Maurice Hicks, Jr on 11/2/2020. (crt,McDonnell, D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
CORY ALLEN
CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-0420
VERSUS
JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.
ROYAL TRUCKING COMPANY, ET AL.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court are: (1) a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant and
Cross-Claimant Kansas City Southern Railway (“KCS”) (Record Document 142); (2) a
Motion to Strike filed by Defendant and Cross-Defendant Royal Trucking Company
(“Royal”) (Record Document 168); and (3) a Motion to Strike filed by KCS (Record
Document 179). For the following reasons, KCS’s Motion for Summary Judgement is
DENIED, Royal’s Motion to Strike is DENIED, and KCS’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On or about January 22, 2018, Plaintiff Cory Allen (“Plaintiff”) was working as an
engineer on a KCS train. Plaintiff became injured when Royal’s tractor-trailer, driven by
employee Emmett Battle (“Battle”), collided with the train. See Record Document 1.
Plaintiff filed claims against Royal and Battle for Battle’s negligent operation of the tractor
trailer, Royal’s negligent entrustment, and Royal’s negligent hiring of Battle. See id. at 3.
Pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. § 51, Plaintiff also
filed a claim against his employer, KCS, for failing to provide a safe workplace. See id.
KCS, in its answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed a cross claim against Royal arguing that
Royal’s negligent hiring, training, and supervision in addition to Battle’s negligent
Page 1 of 7
operation caused Plaintiff’s injuries as well as damage to KCS’s property. See Record
Document 5.1
On April 8, 2020, Royal stipulated that Battle was acting within the course and
scope of his employment when the collision occurred. In light of its stipulation, Royal filed
a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Record Document 132) to dismiss any
outstanding claims of negligent hiring, training, and supervision against Royal. This Court
granted the motion. See Record Document 195.
KCS then filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on its cross claim
asserting that Battle’s gross negligence was the sole cause of the collision. See Record
Document 142. KCS seeks either indemnification and recovery with damages to be
determined or contribution from the Cross-Defendants Royal and Battle for any and all
FELA personal injury damages sought by Plaintiff. See id. Royal opposed the motion and
Battle subsequently adopted the opposition. See Record Documents 167, 169. Cherokee
Insurance Company also filed an opposition to Royal’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
See Record Document 164.
In response, Royal moves to strike all references to Royal’s decision to fire Battle,
Battle’s required training following the collision, and the traffic citation Battle received in
connection with the collision made by KCS in its Motion for Summary Judgment. See
Record Document 168. KCS also filed a Motion to Strike the declaration by R. Major Fant
which Royal attached to its opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. See Record
Document 179.
1
Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint (Record Document 20) realleging the initial claims
while adding Cherokee Insurance Company as a defendant.
Page 2 of 7
LAW AND ANALYSIS
I.
Motions to Strike
Although the Motions to Strike filed by Royal and KCS were filed after KCS’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court will address each before the Motion for
Summary Judgment because they pertain to what evidence the Court may properly
consider when evaluating summary judgment.
A. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(f) permits the court to strike “from any
pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.” Cambridge Toxicology Group, Inc. v. Exnicios, 495 F.3d 169, 178
(5th Cir. 2007). Rule 12(f) motions to strike have long been disfavored by courts, and a
grant of such a motion is to be used “sparingly.” Augustus v. Bd. Of Pub. Instruction of
Escambia Cty., Fla., 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 1962); see also Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp. v. United States, 201 F.2d 819, 822 (6th Cir. 1953) (“Motion[s] to strike
should be granted only when the pleading to be stricken has no possible relation to the
controversy.”).
B. Royal’s Motion to Strike
In its motion, Royal takes issue with KCS’s reference to Battle’s citation, additional
training, and employment termination following the collision. Royal asserts that any
mention of this information by KCS is impermissible because it is inadmissible under
Federal Rules of Evidence 403, 404, 407, 701, 702, 703, and 801. Specifically, Royal
contends that any probative value in Battle’s firing is substantially outweighed by
prejudicial effect. Mention of Battle’s additional training qualifies as a subsequent
remedial measure and use of a citation is impermissible in a civil action arising out of the
Page 3 of 7
same accident. See generally Fox v. NuLine Transport, LLC, 2020 WL 1536531 (W.D.
La. 2020).
After reviewing KCS’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court finds it
unnecessary to strike the aforementioned information. Any mention of Battle’s termination
or subsequent training measures taken by Royal are few in number and have no bearing
on KCS’s argument in support of summary judgment. They are inconsequential and do
not necessitate striking by this Court. The Motion to Strike filed by Royal (Record
Document 168) is DENIED.
C. KCS’s Motion to Strike
KCS contends that the declaration of R. Major Fant attached to Royal’s opposition
to KCS’s Motion for Summary Judgment must be removed from the Court’s consideration
because Royal made no effort to disclose Fant’s information prior to the filing of the
opposition. See Record Document 167, Exhibit B. Absent court order stating otherwise,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires each party to disclose information such as
witness lists and expert reports in compliance with the rule’s deadlines. Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
26. While there have been numerous extensions of the discovery deadlines in the present
case, the Magistrate Judge ordered all discovery to be complete by May 29, 2020. See
Record Document 129. Royal’s Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Summary
Judgment was filed on July 8, 2020 and with it, the affidavit at issue, well past the
discovery deadline. See Record Document 167. Thus, KCS’s Motion to Strike Royal’s
attached declaration by R. Major Fant (Record Document 167, Exhibit B) is GRANTED.
Page 4 of 7
II.
Motion for Summary Judgment
A. Rule 56 Standard
Rule 56 of the F.R.C.P. provides that the court “shall grant summary judgment if
the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” F.R.C.P. 56(a). A genuine dispute of material
fact exists if the record, taken as a whole, could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the
non-moving party. See Geoscan, Inc. of Texas v. Geotrace Techs., Inc., 226 F.3d 387,
390 (5th Cir. 2000). In a summary judgment motion, “a party seeking summary judgment
always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its
motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings . . . [and] affidavits, if any, which
it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553 (U.S. 1986) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). “If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly
address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may . . .
grant summary judgment.” F.R.C.P. 56(e)(3).
If the movant meets this initial burden, then the non-movant has the burden of
going beyond the pleadings and designating specific facts that prove that a genuine issue
of material fact exists. See Celotex, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2554 (U.S. 1986);
see Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). A non-movant, however,
cannot meet the burden of proving that a genuine issue of material fact exists by providing
only “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, by conclusory allegations, by
unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence.” Little, 37 F.3d 1069, 1075
(5th Cir. 1994). Where critical evidence is so weak or tenuous on an essential fact that it
Page 5 of 7
could not support a judgment in favor of the nonmovant, then summary judgment should
be granted. See Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 2005). In
reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court must view “all facts and inferences
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Rogers v. Bromac Title Servs., L.L.C.,
755 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2014).
In its Motion for Summary Judgment, KCS asserts that there is no genuine issue
of material fact as to the cause of the collision. According to KCS, the collision was the
result of Battle’s gross negligence. He breached his duty as a motorist when he failed to
heed the warnings and continued onto the tracks without stopping for the train. See
Record Document 142-1. KCS further argues that it fulfilled its duty to act with reasonable
care by exceeding the regulatory requirements for signals and warnings at the track
crossing. KCS underscores that when a railroad fully complies with its duties regarding
the safety of the railway crossing as it has in this case, the motorist in breach of his duty
is solely liable for the accident. See Record Document 142-1.
In opposition, Royal and Battle argue that a train crew also has a duty to avoid a
collision when the crew, acting as reasonably prudent persons, knew or should have
known that the vehicle would not stop prior to crossing the tracks. See Record Document
167. Cherokee Insurance Company joins Royal and Battle’s argument that whether the
crew timely decided to pull the emergency brake is a fact intensive inquiry that precludes
this Court from granting KCS’s motion. See Record Document 167.2 The Court is inclined
to agree.
It is noted by the Court that Royal and Battle proceed to address KCS’s duties as employer to Plaintiff.
However, these arguments are the subject of Plaintiff’s FELA claim against KCS. The present summary
judgment issue is not seeking judgment on the FELA claim and will not be discussed by the Court here.
2
Page 6 of 7
The Motion for Summary Judgment calls on the Court to address the question of
causation. As evidenced by the parties’ memoranda, the Court believes this question
remains in dispute. Furthermore, under Louisiana law, causation is a question of fact that
is “inappropriate for disposition upon summary judgment.” See Miller v. Mr. B’s Bistro,
2005 WL 2036780, at * 3 (E.D. La. 8/3/05), citing Estate of Adams v. Home Health Care
of La., 2000-2494 (La. 12/15/00), 775 So.2d 1064, 1064. For this Court to weed through
the pleadings in hopes of ultimately reaching a decision as to which party caused the
collision prematurely settles this case before reaching the jury. The analysis is further
complicated by Plaintiff’s remaining claims against KCS, Royal, Battle and Cherokee, all
of which are reliant upon the answer to the causation question.
Because the Court believes the issue of causation is best left to trial on the merits,
KCS’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Record Document 142) is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, KCS’s Motion to Strike (Record Document 179) is
GRANTED. Royal’s Motion to Strike (Record Document 168) is DENIED. KCS’s Motion
for Summary Judgment (Record Document 142) is DENIED.
An order consistent with the terms of the instant Memorandum Ruling shall issue
herewith.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, on this the 2nd day of
November, 2020.
Page 7 of 7
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?