Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Case No.
647731. The Honorable William A. Morvant, Judge Presiding
Charlotte C. McDaniel McGehee Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel
for Plaintiff/Appellant Gregory Allen Campbell
N. Courington Daniel R. Estrada New Orleans, Louisiana
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee DG Louisiana, LLC
BEFORE: McDONALD, THERIOT, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
Allen Campbell appeals the Nineteenth Judicial District
Court's judgment granting DG Louisiana, LLC's motion
for summary judgment. For the following reasons, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 21, 2016, Gregory Allen Campbell filed a petition for
damages, naming Dolgencorp, LLC ("Dolgencorp") as
defendant. In the petition, Campbell alleged that he was
injured at a store owned and operated by Dolgencorp.
Specifically, Campbell alleged that while he was in the
store's bathroom, he encountered a wet area with no
warning signs posted where he slipped and fell. Campbell
claimed that the wet area was caused by a mop bucket that had
been left to drain.
6, 2016, DG Louisiana, LLC ("DG") filed a notice of
removal, removing the lawsuit from the Nineteenth Judicial
District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of
Louisiana, to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana. DG averred that it had been
incorrectly referred to in Campbell's petition as
Dolgencorp. The matter was subsequently remanded back to the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court.
September 6, 2016, Campbell filed a supplemental petition for
damages, naming DG as a defendant and reiterating all of the
allegations of the original petition. On February 2, 2017,
Campbell filed a motion and order to dismiss Dolgencorp, on
the grounds that DG is the proper defendant. The trial court
signed an order dismissing Dolgencorp on February 3, 2017.
2, 2018, DG filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting
that Campbell cannot satisfy his burden of proof under La.
R.S. 9:2800.6. On August 27, 2018, Campbell fax-filed a
motion and order to strike DG's motion for summary
judgment and for sanctions. Campbell argued that DG's
motion for summary judgment was premature, alleging that DG
had prevented Campbell from conducting discovery and ignored
several attempts to set up a 1442 deposition of DG. On the
same date, Campbell fax-filed an opposition to DG's
motion for summary judgment. On the following day, August 28,
2018, Campbell filed several exhibits supporting the
opposition to DG's motion for summary judgment.
September 5, 2018, DG filed a reply to Campbell's
opposition to the motion for summary judgment, in which DG
alleged that Campbell's exhibits were untimely pursuant
to La. Code Civ. P. art. 966. Specifically, DG argued that
because the hearing on the motion for summary judgment was
set for September 10, 2018, the exhibits should have been
filed and served on August 27, 2018. DG pointed out that
Campbell fax-filed the opposition on August 27, 2018, but did
not file the exhibits in support of that opposition until
August 28, 2018.
hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held on
September 10, 2016. On October 9, 2018, the trial court
signed a judgment ordering that Campbell's exhibits be
stricken as untimely. The trial court also granted DG's
motion for summary judgment. Finally, the trial court denied
Campbell's motion to strike DG's untimely motion for
summary judgment and for sanctions. In oral reasons, the
trial court stated that Campbell cannot satisfy any of the
elements of La. R.S. 9:2800.6. Specifically, the trial court
noted that Campbell did not know what he had slipped in, how
long the unknown substance had been there, or whether the
employees knew about the unknown substance. The trial court
further noted that even if Campbell could satisfy the first
element of La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B) (the condition presented an
unreasonable risk of harm to the claimant and that risk of
harm was reasonably foreseeable), Campbell could not prove
that DG had either created or had actual or constructive
notice of the condition that caused the damage, nor could
Campbell prove that DG had failed to exercise reasonable
assigns the following as error.
trial court erred in granting summary judgment, which was