Polk v. Peraza et al

Filing 192

ORDER Granting Defendants' Motion 142 for Partial Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on November 28, 2018. (SSC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SUE POLK, INDIVIDUALLY, AND
AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE
ESTATE OF JERRY R. POLK, THE
HEIRS OF THE ESTATE OF JERRY
R. POLK, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
WRONGFUL DEATH
BENEFICIARIES OF JERRY R.
POLK

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

v.
MAURICO1 PERAZA, MNE
FREIGHT, LLC, AND JOHN DOES
1-5

PLAINTIFFS

Civil No. 1:18cv59-HSO-JCG

DEFENDANTS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION [142] FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES
BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Motion [142] for Partial Summary
Judgment on Punitive Damages. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that
the Motion should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
On or about January 24, 2018, Sue Polk, individually, and as Administratrix
of the Estate of Jerry R. Polk, and on behalf of all wrongful death beneficiaries of

In Defendants’ Notice of Removal [1] and in Plaintiffs’ Complaint [1-1], the parties identify
Defendant Peraza as “Maurico Peraza.” Although subsequent filings in this Court now state
“Mauricio Peraza,” see Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Summ. J. [152], neither party has taken action to
amend or correct the case caption in the docket.

1

1

Jerry R. Polk (collectively “Plaintiff” or “Polk”), filed suit in the Circuit Court of
Pearl River County against Maurico1 Peraza, MNE Freight, LLC, and John Does 15 (collectively “Defendants” or “Peraza”). State Ct. R. [1-1] at 1-4. Polk asserted
claims for wrongful death and survival against Defendants arising out of a fatal
motor vehicle crash that occurred on January 3, 2018. Id. at 4-6. Polk sought
actual damages as well as attorneys’ fees, interest, and punitive damages. Id. at 1112.
On February 21, 2018, Defendants timely removed the case to this Court,
invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and §1441. See Notice of
Removal [1]. On September 27, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion [142] for Partial
Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages. Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Summ. J. [142];
Defs.’ Mem. Br. in Support [143]. Defendants argue that because Plaintiffs have no
evidence that Peraza caused the accident as a result of any actual malice,
willfulness, or wanton or reckless disregard, punitive damages are not appropriate
under Mississippi law. Id. Plaintiffs have conceded in their Response [162] that
their allegations against Defendants do not support a claim for punitive damages
and that summary judgment is proper on this particular claim.2 Pls.’ Resp. [162] at
5.
II. DISCUSSION
A.

Summary judgment standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that summary judgment is

Plaintiffs reserve their objections to the facts as set forth in Defendants’ Motion [142]. Pls.’ Resp.
[162] at 5.

2

2

appropriate “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.” FED. R.
CIV. P. 56(a). “Where the burden of production at trial ultimately rests on the
nonmovant, the movant must merely demonstrate an absence of evidentiary
support in the record for the nonmovant’s case.” Lyles v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
USA, Inc., 871 F.3d 305, 310-11 (5th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1037 (2018)
(quotation omitted). Once the movant carries its initial burden, the nonmovant
must then “come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.” Id. (quotation omitted).
In resolving a motion for summary judgment, a court views the evidence in
the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draws all reasonable inferences in its
favor. Vann v. City of Southaven, Mississippi, 884 F.3d 307, 309 (5th Cir. 2018). A
genuine dispute of material fact exists precluding entry of summary judgment if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant.
Bennett v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 890 F.3d 597, 604 (5th Cir. 2018).
B. Punitive damages under Mississippi law
Mississippi law limits the award of punitive damages to specific
circumstances. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(a); Doe ex rel. Doe v. Salvation
Army, 835 So. 2d 76, 79 (Miss. 2003) (“There is no right to punitive damages.”).
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(a) provides the criteria for an award of punitive
damages:
Punitive damages may not be awarded if the claimant does not prove by
clear and convincing evidence that the defendant against whom punitive
3

damages are sought acted with actual malice, gross negligence which
evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others,
or committed actual fraud.
Id. The Court may only submit the issue of punitive damages to a trier of fact when
it finds, based upon the totality of the circumstances, that the trier of fact could find
by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant’s conduct reflects either malice or
gross neglect/reckless disregard. Doe, 835 So. 3d at 81.
Defendants argue that the record is devoid of any evidence that would
support a finding of malice or gross neglect/reckless disregard. Defs.’ Mot. for
Partial Summ. J. [142] at 2; Defs.’ Mem. Br. in Support [143] at 5. Plaintiffs agree
in their Response [162] that their allegations do not support a claim for punitive
damages and that summary judgment is proper on this claim.

Further, the

Court’s review of the record reveals that Plaintiffs have not shown facts which
would satisfy the criteria for an award of punitive damages under Mississippi law.
See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(a). There is no evidence of actual malice, gross
negligence, or actual fraud. See id. Defendants are therefore entitled to judgment
as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Defendants’
Motion [142] for Partial Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages is GRANTED,
and that Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.

4

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 28th day of November, 2018.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5