Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cassidy v. Golden Nugget Lake Charles, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

February 8, 2019

PHILIP CASSIDY
v.
GOLDEN NUGGET LAKE CHARLES, LLC

          MEMORANDUM RULING

          KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before the court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant Golden Nugget Lake Charles, LLC (“Golden Nugget”). Doc. 44. The Motion is opposed by plaintiff Philip Cassidy. Doc. 68. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

         I.

         Facts and Procedural History

         This case arises from an altercation between plaintiff and a former Golden Nugget employee. On October 23, 2015, Shaydriana Rhodes (hereafter “Rhodes”), was performing her duties as a porter in housekeeping. Doc. 72, p. 6. According to Golden Nugget's VP of Human Resources, her duties included cleaning up the public areas of the gaming floor, public areas and public restrooms. Doc. 70, p. 25. On the day in question plaintiff alleges he was gambling at Golden Nugget's casino when Rhodes came to pick up his beverage. Doc. 1. att. 1, p. 3. The particulars of the exchange that ultimately led to plaintiff's complaint are in dispute but the fact that an assault occurred directed toward plaintiff by Rhodes is not. Doc. 1, att. 1, p. 4; Doc. 44, att. 5. Security video of the incident shows Rhodes struck plaintiff multiple times. Doc. 44, att. 5. Golden Nugget characterizes Rhodes's actions as “an intentional tort against plaintiff.” Doc. 44, att. 4, p. 2.

         On July, 27, 2016, plaintiff, filed suit in the 11th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Doc. 1, att. 1. He named as defendants, Golden Nugget, and Fertitta Entertainment, Inc. (“Fertitta”). Id. He alleges Golden Nugget is vicariously liable for the assault in its capacity as Ms. Rhodes' employer. Doc. 1, att. 1, pp. 7-6. Additionally, plaintiff claims that Golden Nugget committed negligence in that it provided inadequate security, and that it engaged in negligent practices in the hiring, training and retention of Rhodes. Doc. 1, att. 1, pp. 3-8.[1]

         On August 13, 2016, defendants removed the action to the Southern District of Texas based on diversity jurisdiction between Golden Nugget and plaintiff, alleging Feritta, a corporation organized under Texas law with its primary place of business in Texas, was a fraudulently joined as a defendant. Doc. 1.[2] On September 15, 2016, all claims against Fertitta were dismissed by agreement of the parties. Doc. 9.

         On November 7, 2016, the case was transferred to the Western District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Doc. 16. On November 28, 2017, Golden Nugget filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all claims. Doc. 44. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Doc. 68.

         II.

         Law and analysis

         A. The Law

         A court should grant a motion for summary judgment when it is shown “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment is initially responsible for demonstrating the reasons justifying the motion for summary judgment by identifying portions of pleadings and discovery that show the lack of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Tubacex, Inc. v. M/V Risan, 45 F.3d 951, 954 (5 Cir. 1995). The court must deny the moving party's motion for summary judgment if the movant fails to meet this burden. Id.

         Once the movant makes this showing, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986). The burden requires more than mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleadings. Instead, the nonmovant must submit “significant probative evidence” in support of his claim. State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Gutterman, 896 F.2d 116, 118 (5 Cir. 1990). If the evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. Anderson, 106 S.Ct. at 2511.

         A court may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2110 (2000). The court is also required to draw all inferences based on underlying facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Clift v. Clift, 210 F.3d 268, 270 (5 Cir. 2000). There is no genuine issue of material fact if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.