Satterfield v. Jones
ORDER denying 11 Motion for Judgment. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
a/k/a WESTON RAYFIELD,
Case No. 16-13708
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
LARRY LEE JONES,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, to which
Plaintiff has responded. Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(f)(2), the court did not hear oral
argument. For the reasons explained below, Defendant’s motion is denied.
Plaintiff Gary Satterfield filed this diversity action against Defendant Larry
Lee Jones, alleging assault, battery, and negligence. Plaintiff is an artist whose
work was displayed at Defendant’s store, Everything Classic Antiques in Port
Huron, Michigan. On May 1, 2015, Satterfield called Jones and made
arrangements to pick up his art from the store. Once Satterfield arrived at the
store, he began gathering his artwork and moving it to his van. Jones then
approached Satterfield and attempted to prevent him from taking the artwork from
the store. As Satterfield was loading artwork into his van, Jones grabbed the art
and dragged it, with Satterfield trailing behind, into the store. Satterfield alleges
that Jones pushed him hard into a concrete pillar in the store, which knocked him
briefly unconscious. When Satterfield came to, he felt numbness and then
significant pain on his left side.
Satterfield was treated by emergency medical services and gave his version
of the events to the responding police officers. Satterfield sought treatment at Port
Huron McLaren Hospital for this shoulder and was diagnosed with a clavicle
separation. He engaged in physical therapy, but had not regained full functionality
in his shoulder.
Defendant Jones seeks summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims, by
disputing Plaintiff’s version of events. When reviewing a motion for summary
judgment, however, the court must view the facts and any reasonable inferences
drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
The court does not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations. When
viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could
find in his favor on his assault, battery, and negligence claims. See Mitchell v.
Daly, 133 Mich. App. 414 (1984); Mich. Civ. JI 115.20 (assault), 115.21 (battery);
Schultz v. Consumers Power Co., 443 Mich. 445, 449 (1993) (elements of
negligence claim). Defendant has not met his burden of demonstrating that “there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and that he is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment is DENIED.
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: December 1, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record on this date, December 1, 2017, using the ECF system.
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?