Bajaria v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment & Brief in Support Thereof (Dkt. # 19 ) is hereby DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Combined Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) (Dkt. # 37 ) is hereby DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief District Judge Amos L Mazzant on 3/7/2025. (rpc)

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

RAUF BAJARIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC,
WALMART, INC. D/B/A WAL-MART
SUPERCENTER #2883, WAL-MART
REAL ESATE BUSINESS TRUST,
AND WALMART STORES, INC.,
AND WALMART,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-311
Judge Mazzant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC’s Motion for
Summary Judgment & Brief in Support Thereof (Dkt. #19) and Plaintiff’s Combined Motion and
Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56(d) (Dkt. #37). Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that
Defendant’s Motion should be DENIED and Plaintiff’s Motion should be DENIED as moot.
BACKGROUND
On November 13, 2024, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #19). On
December 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Response (Dkt. #34). On December 5, 2024, Plaintiff then
filed a Motion under FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d) petitioning the Court to deny or defer Defendant’s
summary judgment motion pending discovery on its factual assertions (Dkt. #37 at p. 1). On
December 11, 2024, Defendant filed its Reply (Dkt. #39). The Motions are now ripe for
adjudication.

LEGAL STANDARD
The purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims
or defenses. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986). Summary judgment is proper
under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “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). A dispute about a material fact is genuine when “the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Substantive law identifies which facts are material. Id. The trial court “must
resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary judgment.”
Casey Enters., Inc. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir. 1981).
The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of its
motion and identifying “depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials” that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the movant bears the burden
of proof on a claim or defense for which it is moving for summary judgment, it must come forward
with evidence that establishes “beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or
defense.” Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986). Where the nonmovant
bears the burden of proof, the movant may discharge the burden by showing that there is an absence
of evidence to support the nonmovant’s case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; Byers v. Dall. Morning
News, Inc., 209 F.3d 419, 424 (5th Cir. 2000). Once the movant has carried its burden, the
nonmovant must “respond to the motion for summary judgment by setting forth particular facts

2

indicating there is a genuine issue for trial.” Byers, 209 F.3d at 424 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at
248–49). A nonmovant must present affirmative evidence to defeat a properly supported motion
for summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257. Mere denials of material facts, unsworn
allegations, or arguments and assertions in briefs or legal memoranda will not suffice to carry this
burden. Rather, the Court requires “significant probative evidence” from the nonmovant to
dismiss a request for summary judgment. In re Mun. Bond Reporting Antitrust Litig., 672 F.2d 436,
440 (5th Cir. 1982) (quoting Ferguson v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 584 F.2d 111, 114 (5th Cir. 1978)). The
Court must consider all of the evidence but “refrain from making any credibility determinations or
weighing the evidence.” Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007).
ANALYSIS
After careful review of the record and the arguments, the Court finds that Defendant’s
Motion should be denied. Defendant has not shown that no material issue of fact exists that would
entitle Defendant to judgment as a matter of law. Consequently, the Court need not consider
Plaintiff’s motion seeking denial or deferral of summary judgment pending further discovery.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC’s Motion for
Summary Judgment & Brief in Support Thereof (Dkt. #19) is hereby DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Combined Motion and Memorandum of Law in
Support of Their Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) (Dkt. #37) is hereby
DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

SIGNED this 7th day of March, 2025.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE