Jones v. Greenbrier Minerals, LLC
ORDER denying Greenbrier Minerals' Second Renewed 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 3/31/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (slr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHRISTOPHER M. JONES,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00814
GREENBRIER MINERALS, LLC,
Pending is Greenbrier Minerals, LLC’s (“Greenbrier Minerals”), Second Renewed
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 48], filed January 15, 2021. Plaintiff Christopher M. Jones
responded in opposition [Doc. 51] on January 29, 2021, to which Greenbrier replied on February
8, 2021 [Doc. 52].
On October 22, 2019, Mr. Jones instituted this action against Greenbrier Minerals
in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County alleging claims for (1) FMLA interference, (2) FMLA
discrimination/retaliation, and (3) common law wrongful discharge pursuant to Harless v. First
National Bank, 162 W. Va. 116, 246 S.E.2d 270 (1978). Greenbrier removed the action on
November 14, 2019, and seeks summary judgment on all three of Mr. Jones’s claims.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that summary judgment is proper
where “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). The burden is on the nonmoving
party to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “The nonmoving party must do so by offering ‘sufficient proof in
the form of admissible evidence’ rather than relying solely on the allegations of her pleadings.”
Guessous v. Fairview Prop. Invs., LLC, 828 F.3d 208, 216 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Mitchell v.
Data Gen. Corp., 12 F.3d 1310, 1316 (4th Cir. 1993)).
The Court must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the [nonmoving]
party.” Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted); Variety
Stores, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 888 F.3d 651, 659 (4th Cir. 2018). “The court . . . cannot
weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations.” Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the
Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 569 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Lee v. Town of Seaboard, 863 F.3d 323, 327
(4th Cir. 2017). In general, if “an issue as to a material fact cannot be resolved without observation
of the demeanor of witnesses in order to evaluate their credibility, summary judgment is not
appropriate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committee’s note to 1963 amendment.
Upon review of the briefs submitted, the Court concludes that genuine disputes of
material fact remain as to each of Mr. Jones’s claims, thus precluding summary judgment.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Greenbrier Minerals’ Second Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. 48].
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any
ENTERED: March 31, 2021
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?