Hojnacki v. Speedway LLC

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 8)AND DISMISSING CASE. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICIA HOJNACKI,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-11565

SPEEDWAY LLC,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendant.
__________________________________/
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 8)1
AND DISMISSING CASE
I.
This is a tort case. Plaintiff alleges she was injured after a fall at a Speedway
store. Before the Court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons
that follow, the motion is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED.
II.
On March 15, 2016, plaintiff stopped at the Speedway gas station in Roseville,
Michigan, to purchase gasoline and a soft drink. After pumping gas, plaintiff entered the
store without incident, walked past the cashier, and down an aisle to the selfserve soda
machine where she filled a 32-ounce plastic cup with Diet Coke. Plaintiff then turned
and walked back towards the cashier along the same aisle she had just traveled. At
some point, plaintiff slipped on “something slippery” and fell to the ground, spilling her
drink all over the immediate area. Plaintiff later sued defendant claiming negligence.

1

Although originally scheduled for hearing, upon review of the parties’ papers, the
Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2).

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that although
plaintiff alleges that she fell on “something slippery,” she has no evidence regarding the
substance on which she allegedly fell. Defendant also says that plaintiff has no
evidence regarding how—or when—the alleged “slippery” condition arose.
Plaintiff filed a response, stating that she is “not opposing Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.” (Doc. 10).
III.
Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party shows that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Upon a motion for summary judgment, the factual
contentions are viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for
summary judgment. Duchon v. Cajon Co., 791 F.2d 43, 46 (6th Cir.1986). However,
where, as here, the non-moving party does not formally oppose the motion for summary
judgment, “summary judgment should, if appropriate, be entered” against the
non-moving party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).
Accordingly, for the reasons explained in defendant’s motion and supporting
brief, summary judgment in defendant’s favor is appropriate.
SO ORDERED.
S/Avern Cohn
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: 2/13/2018
Detroit, Michigan

2