United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
STACY DESHOTEL, ET AL.
UNIFIRST CORPORATION, ET AL.
PATRICK J. HANNA MAG. JUDGE
A. DOUGHTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendant ESIS, Inc.'s
(“ESIS”) Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No.
25]. ESIS moves the Court for summary judgment, contending
that it is not the insurer of Defendant Unifirst Corporation
(“Unifirst”) and does not have any liability to
Plaitiffs Stacey Deshotel and Lisa Deshotel (“the
Deshotels”). The Deshotels have failed to oppose the
following reasons, ESIS's Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED, and the Deshotels' claims against it are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
case arises out of a slip and fall incident. On or about
September 19, 2016, Defendant Unifirst delivered a mat to
Cajun Express Service Center (“Cajun”), a
business co-owned by Plaintiff Stacey Deshotel. Mr. Deshotel
alleges that on or about September 20, 2016, he was working
on the front sales floor at Cajun and needed to go out the
front entrance. On his way out, his foot caught in the mat,
and he fell. Mr. Deshotel hit his head on the door, breaking
the glass and injuring his left arm.
September 19, 2017, the Deshotels filed suit against Unifirst
and ESIS. ESIS was listed as the insurer of Unifirst. The
Deshotels further allege that ESIS is liable to them
“jointly, severally, and in solido for all
damages herein, ” but fails to allege any facts other
than ESIS's alleged status as Unifirst's insurer.
October 19, 2018, ESIS filed the instant Motion for Summary
Judgment. Under the Court's Notice of Motion Setting
[Doc. No. 31], the Deshotels' opposition was due no later
than November 13, 2018. None has been filed, and the Court is
now prepared to rule.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
judgment “shall [be] grant[ed] . . . 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 fact is
“material” if proof of its existence or
nonexistence would affect the outcome of the lawsuit under
applicable law in the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a
material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is
such that a reasonable fact finder could render a verdict for
the nonmoving party. Id.
moving party can meet the initial burden, the burden then
shifts to the nonmoving party to establish the existence of a
genuine issue of material fact for trial. Norman v.
Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1023 (5th Cir. 1994). The
nonmoving party must show more than “some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
586 (1986). In evaluating the evidence tendered by the
parties, the Court must accept the evidence of the nonmovant
as credible and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
Status as Insurer and Basis for Liaibility
moves the Court for summary judgment because it is not the
insurer of Cajun, and the Deshotels have failed to ...