Mann v. Mobile Media Enterprises

Filing 103

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 76 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F. A. Gossett. (CLS, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA C H R IS T O P H E R S. MANN, ) ) P l a i n t i f f, ) ) vs. ) ) M O B IL E MEDIA ENTERPRISES LLC, ) ) D efe n d a n t. ) 8 :0 7 C V 4 7 9 M E M O R A N D U M AND ORDER T h is matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the consent of the p a rties on defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 76). The briefing schedule e x p ire d upon the filing of defendant's reply brief on April 19, 2010. The court has reviewed th e pleadings, the briefs, and the evidentiary materials filed by the parties. For the reasons e x p la in e d below, the court finds that the motion for summary judgment must be denied. I . NATURE OF THE CASE O n June 16, 2006, the defendant ("Mobile Media") hosted a tent at the NCAA College W o rld Series for the purpose of marketing Cingular Wireless products. The tent included a "Hi Striker" or "Test Your Strength" game ("Game"), which required the participant to s w in g at and strike a plate with a mallet which, upon impact, caused an object to elevate up a tower toward a bell. If the bell rang, the participant would win a prize. Plaintiff was injured while playing the Game. He alleges in his Second Amended C o m p l a in t (Doc. 41) that the defendant furnished him with a short-handled rubberized m a llet. In order to swing the mallet, he was required to bend over the strike plate with his f a ce directly over and parallel to the plate. When plaintiff swung the mallet and struck the p la te , the rubberized end of the mallet immediately bounced off the plate, propelled b a c k w a rd s through the air, and struck plaintiff in the face. Plaintiff suffered injuries to his f a c e , eye and nose. Plaintiff has asserted claims for negligence, negligently supplying a chattel for the p la in tif f 's use, and premises liability. M o b ile Media denies liability. In summary, it affirmatively alleges that any dangers a ss o c ia te d with playing the Game are generally known and recognized by ordinary persons in the general public; plaintiff assumed the risk of injury; plaintiff was negligent or c o n trib u to rily negligent; plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages; and Mobile Media met all a p p lic a b le standards of care. I I . LEGAL ANALYSIS A. J u r is d ic tio n and Venue T h e pleadings establish that the plaintiff resides in the State of Kansas. Defendant is a limited liability company organized and existing according to the laws of the State of D elaw are with its principal place of business in the State of Georgia. Plaintiff's injury o c c u rre d in the State of Nebraska. This court has "diversity" subject matter jurisdiction p u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. -2- B. S t a n d a r d of Review 1 . Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 S u m m ary judgment "should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure m a te ria ls on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact a n d that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the c o u r t of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of "the pleadings, depositions, a n sw e rs to interrogatories, admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," which it b e liev e s demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Tenbarge v. Ames T a p in g Tool Sys., Inc., 128 F.3d 656, 657-58 (8th Cir. 1997); NECivR 56.1(a). In the face of a properly supported motion, "[t]he burden then shifts to the nonmoving p a rty to 'set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Prudential In s . Co. v. Hinkel, 121 F.3d 364, 366 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1048 (1998) ( q u o t in g former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). The nonmoving party must set forth specific facts, s u p p o rte d by affidavits or other proper evidence, showing that there is a genuine issue for tria l. See Wingate v. Gage County School Dist., No. 34, 528 F.3d 1074, 1078 (8th Cir. 2008); F e d . R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). "To establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, '[a] p l a in t if f may not merely point to unsupported self-serving allegations.'" Bass v. SBC C o m m c 'n s , Inc., 418 F.3d 870, 872 (8th Cir. 2005). The plaintiff must substantiate his or her -3- a lle g a tio n s with sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in his favor. See S m ith v. International Paper Co., 523 F.3d 845, 848 (8th Cir. 2008). 2 . Compliance with Local Rules 7.0.1 and 56.1 " T o be considered on summary judgment, documents must be authenticated by and a tta c h ed to an affidavit made on personal knowledge setting forth such facts as would be ad m issib le in evidence or a deposition that meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). D o c u m e n ts which do not meet those requirements cannot be considered." Stuart v. General M o to r s Corp., 217 F.3d 621, 635 n.20 (8th Cir. 2000); see also, e.g., Shanklin v. Fitzgerald, 3 9 7 F.3d 596, 602 (8th Cir. 2005); DG&G, Inc. v. FlexSol Packaging Corp. of Pompano B e a c h , 576 F.3d 820, 825-26 (8th Cir. 2009). Thus, the local rules of this court require that documents used as evidence to support o r oppose a motion must be authenticated by affidavit. NECivR 7.0.1 & NECivR 56.1. In th e case of evidence submitted in support of a motion, "[a]n affidavit must identify and a u th e n tic a te documents filed with the index. The affidavit must be made on personal k n o w le d g e , set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence, show affirmatively that the a f f ia n t is competent to testify to the matters stated, and identify the related motion." NECivR 7 .0 .1 (a )(2 )(C ). NECivR 7.0.1 further cautions that "a party who does not follow this rule m a y be considered to have abandoned in whole or in part that party's position on the pending m o tio n ." -4- N E C iv R 56.1 applies to motions for summary judgment. It requires the movant to in c lu d e in the brief "a separate statement of material facts about which the moving party c o n te n d s there is no genuine issue to be tried and that entitles the moving party to judgment a s a matter of law. Failure to submit a statement of facts may be grounds to deny the m o tio n ." NECivR 56.1(a)(1) (Emphasis in original). Furthermore, The statement of facts should consist of short numbered paragraphs, each c o n t a i n in g pinpoint references to affidavits, pleadings, discovery responses, d e p o sitio n testimony (by page and line), or other materials that support the m a te ria l facts stated in the paragraph. A fact is "material" if pertinent to the o u tc o m e of the issues identified in the summary judgment motion. The s ta te m e n t of facts must describe the parties and recite all facts supporting the c o u rt's venue and jurisdiction. The statement must not contain legal co n clu s io n s. Failure to provide citations to the exact locations in the record s u p p o rtin g the factual allegations may be grounds to deny the motion. N E C iv R 56.1(a)(2) (Emphasis in original). It is no secret that the judges of this court intend to enforce the local rules of practice, e s p e c ia lly rules relating to the substance of motions. See, e.g., PW Eagle, Inc. v. Schnase, 3 7 6 F. Supp. 2d 945 (D. Neb. 2005); Cordray v. 135-80 Travel Plaza, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 2d 1 0 1 1 (D. Neb. 2005); Hillard v. Clarke, 245 F.R.D. 419 (D. Neb. 2007). In this instance, the defendant submitted over 200 pages of unauthenticated 1 " ev id e n c e," together with one unauthenticated videotape, in support of its motion for s u m m a ry judgment. The defendant did not provide a statement of uncontroverted facts, and 1 The plaintiff also submitted unauthenticated "evidence" in response to the motion. -5 - d id not provide pinpoint citations to the record. When the plaintiff pointed out this serious d e f ic ie n c y, the defendant belatedly attempted­unsuccessfully­to remedy the matter in the re p ly brief. Under the circumstances, the court finds that the defendant has not made a properly s u p p o rte d motion for summary judgment and has failed to show that there is no genuine issue a s to any material fact or that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. T h e trial schedule will not accommodate the re-submission of any motions for s u m m a ry judgment, and the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment will not be re o p e n ed . ORDER I T IS ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 76) is d e n ie d . D A T E D May 7, 2010. B Y THE COURT: s / F.A. Gossett U n ite d States Magistrate Judge -6-

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?