Petigny v. Wal-Mart Stores, East, LP. et al, No. 1:2018cv23762 - Document 19 (S.D. Fla. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER denying 9 Motion to Remand and granting 6 7 8 Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by no later than November 27, 2018. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 11/13/2018. See attached document for full details. (mmd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Petigny v. Wal-Mart Stores, East, LP. et al Doc. 19 UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SO U TH ERN DISTR ICT OF FLO RID A CaseNum ber:18-23762-CIV-M OItENO EVELYNE PETIGNY, Plaintiff, w A L-M A RT s'ro u s EA ST L.P. JA M ES REINARD,andRACHELLEIERIèLES, Defendants. / ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REM AND AND GRANTING M OTIONS TO DISM ISS Plaintiffissuing DefendantW al-M artStoresEast,L.P.and itstwo store m anagersfora slip-and-fallaccident she suffered atDefendant's store. The Defendants removed thiscase to federalcourtand arealleging thatPlaintifffraudulentlyjoinedthetwo storemanagersto defeat completediversity.ThisCourtagreesasone ofthem anagerswasnotatwork when theaccident occurred and the other store m anager'sdeclaration establishesshe had no active involvem entin causing thePlaintiff'saccident. Accordingly,the CourtdeniesthePlaintiff'sm otion forremand and dismissesthetwo individualDefendants.TheCourtadditionally hasanalyzed thePlaintiff's negligent mode of operation claim and finds it is not sustainable under Florida Statute j 768.7055. THIS CAUSE camebeforetheCourtuponPlaintiffsM otion forRemand (D.E.9),filed on October12.2018,RachellePericles'sMotiontoDismiss(D.E.6)filedon October5.2018, JamesReinard'sMotion toDismiss(D.E.7)filed on October5.2018,and W al-mart'sM otion toDismiss(D.E.8)filed on October11.2018. THE COURT has considered the motions,the responses,the pertinent portions of the record,and being otherwisefully advised in thepremises,itis Dockets.Justia.com ADJUDGED thatthe m otion for rem and is DENIED and the motions to dismiss are G RAN TED . Plaintiff m ay file an am ended com plaint againstD efendant W al-M artStores East, L.P.,byno laterthan Novem ber27,2018. 1. Backzround Plaintiff,Evelyne Petigny,a Florida resident,is suing Defendant W al-M artStoresEast, L.P,and store managers Jam esReinard and Rachelle Pericles.Plaintiff claims thaton July 1, 2014,she slipped and fellon grapes on the floor atDefendant's store,causing her to sustain On April24,2018,Plaintiff brought suitin state courtand Defendants rem oved the injuries. casetofederalcourton thebasisofdiversityjurisdiction.See28U.S.C.j 1441,etseq.,and28 U.S.C.j 1332(a)(1).Plaintiffnow movesto remand arguing thatthestoremanagers'residence destroys com plete diversity. Defendants, however, contend that the store m anagers, Jam es ReinardandRachellePericles,werefraudulentlyjoinedtoevaderemoval. Forthereasonsexplained below,the Courtagreeswith Defendantsand Plaintiff sm otion to remand isDENIED . ll. A. L ezalStandards M otion forR em and Onamotion to remand,theremovingpartybearstheburden ofestablishingjurisdiction. Tapscottv.MS DealerServ.Corp.,77F.3d 1353,1356-57(11th Cir.1996),overruled onother groundsby Cohen v.Ofhce Depot,Inc.,204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir.2000). Theremovalstatute should beconstrued narrowly,with uncertaintiesresolved in favorofrem and.D iaz v.Sheppard, 85F.3d 1502,1505(11th Cir.1996). df-f'heburden ofpleading diversity ofcitizenship isupon thepartyinvoking federaljurisdiction,and ifjurisdiction isproperly challenged,thatparty also bearsthe burden of proof.''Rolling Greens M HP,L.P.v.ComcastSCH Holdings L.L.C ,374 F.3d 1020,1022 (11th Cir.2004)(quotingRay v.Bird & Son drAssetRealizationCo.,519F.2d 1081,1082(5th Cir.1975)). B. M otion to D ism iss 6$To survive a m otion to dism iss, plaintiffs m ust do m ore than m erely state legal conclusions,''instead plaintiffsm ustkdallege som e specific factualbasisforthose conclusionsor facedismissaloftheirclaims.''Jackwn v.Bellsouth Telecomm.,372 F.3d 1250,1263(11th Cir. 2004). W henruling on amotion to dismiss,acourtmustview thecomplaintin the lightmost favorable to the plaintiff and acceptthe plaintiffs well-pleaded facts as true. See St.Joseph' s Hosp.,lnc.v.Hosp.Corp.ofAm.,795F.2d948,953(11thCir.1986).Thistenet,however,does notapplytolegalconclusions.SeeAshcrop v.Iqbal,129 S.Ct.1937,1949(2009).M oreover, Sllwjhilelegalconclusionscanprovidetheframeworkofacomplaint,theymustbesupported by factualallegationsv''1d.at1950. Those''lqactualallegationsmustbeenough toraisearightto relief above the speculative level on the assum ption that all of the com plaint's allegations are true.'' BellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,550U.S.544,545 (2007). ln short,thecomplaintmustnot m erely allege amisconduct,butmustdemonstratethatthe pleaderisentitled to relief. SeeIqbal, 129 S.Ct.at1950 111. A. Analvsis M otion forRem and Fora case to travelin federalcourtunder diversity jurisdiction,the parties mustbe completely diverse and the am ount-in-controversy m ust exceed $75,000.See Underwriters Lloyd' sLondon,v.Osting-schwinn,6l3F.3d 1079,1085 (11th Cir.2010))28U.S.C.j 1332(a). A t issue in the m otion for rem and is w hether there is com plete diversity, as the parties do not disputethejurisdictionalamountismet. 1. FraudulentJoinder 3 k$A defendant's right to removal cannot be defeated by a fraudulent joinder of a residentialdefendant having had no realconnection to the controversy.''Thomas v.Big Lots Stores,lnc.,No.8:11-cv-673-T-33AEP,2011 W L 3035269,at*2 (M .D.Fla.July 25,2011) (internalcitationsand quotationsomitted).Ctloindermaybedeemed fraudulentwhen thereisno possibility thattheplaintiffcan establish a causeofaction againstthenon-diverse defendant.''Id k$A defendantalleging fraudulentjoinderhas the burden of proving the alleged fraud.''1d. (quotingAccordino v.Wal-M artStoresE.,LP,No.3:05-cv-761-J-32M CR,2005 W L 3336503, at*2 (M .D.Fla.Dec.8,2005)).Cd-l-hatburden isaheavy one.''1d.(citingPacheco dePerezv. AT&T Co.,139 F.3d 1368,l380 (11th Cir.1998)).Thedefendantmustshow thatthereisçsno possibility''thatthe plaintiff can establish a claim against the non-diverse defendant in state court.Stephensv.Petsmart,Inc.,No.8:0l9-cv-815-T-26TBM ,2009 W L 3674680,at*2 (M .D. Fla.Nov.3,2009)(citationsomitted). li-f' hedetermination ofwhetheraresidentdefendanthasbeenfraudulentlyjoinedmustbe based upon theplaintiffs pleadings atthe tim e ofremoval,supplem ented by any affidavits and deposition transcripts subm itted by the parties.''Pritchard v.W al-M artStores,Inc.,N o.8:09-cv- 46-T-24TGW ,2009 W L 580425,at*2 (M .D.Fla.M arch 5,2009).çs-l-he Courtmustevaluate factualuncertaintiesin thelightmostfavorable to theplaintiffand resolveuncertaintiesaboutthe applicablelaw in theplaintiffsfavor.''Big LotsStores,Inc.,2011W L 3035269,at*2 (internal quotationsomitted).ti-l-he factthatthe plaintiffmay notultimately prevailagainsttheresident defendantdoes not mean that the residentdefendant has been fraudulently joined; only a colorable claim againstthe residentdefendantisneeded.''1d. PlaintiffarguesthatJam esReinard and Rachelle Periclesare Florida residents,destroying diversity.Defendants contend that Plaintiff fraudulently joined the store managers solely to evaderem oval. a. Jam esR einard,Store M anager A ccording to a sw orn declaration provided by Jam es Reinard, a store m anager at the W al-M artstore where Plaintiffallegedly slipped and fell,M r.Reinard was notpresentin the store or on the prem ises at the tim e of the alleged incident.ln Stephens v.Petsmart,an alm ost identicaldispute arose- plaintiff slipped and fellin a Petsm artstore on a w et substance on the tloor and Petsm artrem oved to federalcourt,at which point plaintiff sought to add two nondiverse storem anagersto the suit.ln thatcase,the courtfound thatbecauseone ofthem anagers was notpresentin the store atthe tim e ofthe alleged incident,he could notbe found liable. Stephens,2009 W L 3674680,at*2.dsln Florida,there isno recognized cause ofaction foran in absentia claim ofnegligentfailure to maintain gaJ store because Florida 1aw requiresthata corporateofficeroragentbepersonally liable fornegligenceonly ifhe orsheparticipatesin the tortious conduct.''fJ. H ere,because M r. Reinard w as not present at the tim e of the alleged incident- and because Plaintiff has provided no sworn testim ony to the contrary- the Court tlndsthatthere isSino possibility''thatPlaintiffwould be able to establish a claim againsthim in state court.Accordino,2005 W L 3336503,at *2-3;H illary Joy Taylor D esalto v.Garden Fresh Restaurants,LLC,No.18-61410(S.D.Fla.Od.10,2018).Forthatreason,theCourtfindsthat Defendanthasmetitsheavy burden ofproving thatM r.Reinard,hasbeen fraudulentlyjoined and his citizenship willnotbe considered forpurposes of determining diversity.1d.(citing RussellPetroleum Corp.v.EnvironProds.,Inc.,333F.Supp.2d 1228,1231(M .D.Ala.2004)). The Courtadditionally finds thatbecause Florida 1aw doesnotrecognize an in absentia claim ofnegligentfailure to m aintain a store,itis appropriate to grantthe DefendantReinard's m otion to dism iss Count11ofPlaintiff s com plaint. RachellePericles,StoreM anager on Duty Rachelle Pericleswasthe assistantstore m anager on duty atthe W al-m artstore where Plaintiffallegedly slipped and fellon July 1,2014. The liability ofan agentofa corporation is bestdescribed in White v.Wal-M artStores,Inc., 918So.2d357(F1a.1stDCA 2006),wherethe courtstated: (Oqfficersoragentsofcorporationsmay beindividually liable in tortif they comm itor participate in a tort,even iftheir acts are w ithin the course and scope of their em ploym ent. H ow ever, to establish liability,thecomplaining pal' ty mustallege and provethat the officeroragentowed a duty to thecomplaining party,and that thedutywasbreachedthroughpersonal(asopposedtotechnicalor vicarious) fault. . .. gA)n oftker or agent may not be held personally liable simply because of his general adm inistrative responsibility for performance ofsome function ofhis (or herq employment- heorshem ustbeactively negligent. M oreover,ttgtlhe district courtmustresolve al1questions of fact in plaintiffs favor; howevtr,when a dtftndant's aftidavits are undisputed by the plaintiff,the courtcannot then resolve the fads in the plaintiffs favor based solely upon the unsupporttd allegations in the plaintiff s com plaint.''Sci p ione v.Advance Stores Co.,Inc., N o.8:12-cv-687-T-24-A EP,2012 W L 3105199,*3 (M .D.Fla.July 31,2012)(citingfegg v.Wyeth,428 F.3d 1317,1323 (11th Cir.2005)).Thecourts'analysesandfindingsin Scl pionev.AdvanceStoresCo.,Inc.,Stephens v.Petsm art,Inc.,and Pritchard v.Wal-M artStores,lnc.are instructive in this case. Forexam ple, in Sclk pione,an almost identicalcase involving a slip-and-fallaccident,the courtfound that plaintiffcould notadd theassistantstore managerasa defendantbecauseplaintiffdid notdispute the assistant store m anager's sw orn declaration denying that he had any know ledge of the condition thatcaused plaintiff's accident.Id ,20l2 W L 3105199,at *4. Likewise,in Stephens v. Petsmart,lnc.,the courtfound thatalthough the presentation m anager w aspresenton the day in question,the affdavitsdem onstrated thathe had no priorknowledge ofthehazardouscondition in the store and thatthere was Slno possibility''thata cause ofaction could be asserted against him in his individualcapacity.Stephens,2009 W L 3674680, at *2. ,see also Pritchard v. W al- MartStores,Inc.,2009 W L 580425,at*3(findingthatthemanagerof astorein aslip-and-fall case had been fraudulently joined because plaintiff failed to point to any evidence that controvertedthemanager'ssworndeclarationstatingthatshewasnotactivelynegligent). Plaintiffs Am ended Complaint does not contain factual allegations that Pericles was personally atfault or actively negligent. Plaintiff does notallege facts showing thatPericles caused grapesto be on the floor,wastold the grapes were on the floor,knew or should have known aboutthegrapesbeing on thefloor,orwasin thearea ofPlaintiffsincidentpriorto same in order to correct it. H ere, like in the cases cited above, D efendant has provided a sw orn declaration of M s. Pericles, refuting Plaintiffs conclusory allegations in the Am ended Complaint.M ore specifically,the declaration statesthat(1)M s.Pericleswas notin the area wheretheincidentoccurred priorto Plaintiffsfallorduring the incident:(2)M s.Periclesand hcrtrained employeesvisually inspectthe storefortransitory substancesand hazards;and (3) M s.Pericles had no prior knowledge of the dangerous condition,nor did she participate in the incident.BecausePlaintiffhasnotsubm itted any evidenceto theeontrary,thereisno question of fad to resolve. Absentevidence she personally partidpated in tortious condud,M s.Pericles calm ot be held personally liable for negligence under Florida law.See Scipione, 2012 W L 2105199,at*4.The evidence beforethe Courtindicatesthatthere isno possibility thatPlaintiff can establish a cause ofaction againstM s.Pericles.Forthisreason,Defendanthasagain m etits high burdenofestablishingfraudulentjoinderandM s.Pericles'scitizenshipwillthereforenotbe considered forpurposes ofdeterm ining diversity. In addition, the Court tinds that because Plaintiff's Am ended Com plaint lacks the requisite factual allegations about specific acts or omissions by M s. Pericles individually, dismissalofCount111isappropriate. B. W al-m art's M otion to D ism issN egligentM ode ofO peration C laim Inaddition tomovingtodismissbasedon fraudulentjoinder,W al-martmovesto dismiss Plaintiff's amended com plaintarguing there isno cognizable negligentmode ofoperation claim underFlorida law . The negligentm ode ofoperation theory allow sa plaintiffto recoverby show ing thata defendantfailed to exercise reasonable care in selecting a m ode ofoperation, w ithoutshow ing thatthe defendanthad actualorconstructive know ledge ofthe dangerouscondition. See M arkowitz v. Helen Homesof KendallCorp.,826 So.2d 256,259-60 (Fla.2002).Thisisno longerthelaw in Florida in slip-and-fallcases involving transitory substances. Khorran v.Harbor FreightTools USA , lnc.,251So.3d962(Fla.3dDCA 2018)('$W erecognizethatthis(theelimination oftheknowledge requirementlnolongerholdstrue in premisesliability casesinvolving aslip and fallonatransitory foreignsubstance.'').Now,proofofactualorconstructiveknowledgeisanecessaryelementofaslip andfallclaim.SeeSanchezv.ERMC ofAm.,LLC,2:l6-CV-851-FTM-99CM ,2017W L 417129,at *4(M .D.Fla.Jan.31,2017)(grantingmotiontodismissnegligentmodeofoperation claim);Valles v. Target Corp., No. l4-60723-Civ-Scola, 20l5 WL l640326,at *2 (S. D.Fla.Apr.9,2015) (Essentially,underFlorida law,û'aperson claimingthatastorewasnegligentbynotcleaningup a dangerouscondition m ustpresentsom e evidence thatthe dangerous condition . . . existed for such a length oftim e that,in the exercise ofordinary care,the store would haveknown ofthe condition.'' ). Plaintiffarguesthatthe statute m erely added a knowledge requirem ent, butdid noteliminate the cause of action in transitory substance cases. In enacting Fla.Stat.j 768. 0755,the Florida legislature specifically repealed the language of Fla. Stat. 768.0710, which had allow ed a plaintiff to establish a claim for relief by showing a negligent mode ofoperation withoutthe showing ofactualorconstructiveknowledge.Therefore, Plaintiff s argum ent thather negligent 8 mode ofoperation claim survives undersubsection (2) ofthe statute is notsupported Si-f'he . statute elim inated a statutory cause ofaction, butpreselwed only comm on law claims''in cases wherethereisatransitoly substanceonthefloorcausingplaintiffsinjury.Sanchezv ERMC of . Am ., LLC,N o.2:16-CV -851-FTM -99CM , 2017 W L 417129,at*4 (M . D.Fla.Jan.31,2017). TheEleventh Circuithasalso explained thatin thiscontext, aplaintiffm ustshow evidenceofthe basic elem ents of a negligence action, and w hether there w as actual or constructive notice concerns the elem entof breach ofthe duty of care. Vallot v.fogan ' s Roadhouse, Inc.,567 F. App'x 723,726 (1lth Cir.2014). Accordingly,the Courtgrants the motion to dismissthe negligent mode of operation claim . ln so holding,the Plaintiff may proceed on a traditional negligenceclaim againstDefendantW al-m art. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at M iami, Florida,this 2018. of Novem ber # . .'' . . *'- ..-ee-e FEDE Q.A' .'9 oRENo UNITED jTATESDISTRICTJUDGE Copiesfurnishedto: CounselofRecord
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
