Opinion
Civ. No. 99-3197, Section "N".
March 13, 2000.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Radisson Hotels International Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
A. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Connie H. Garsee alleges that, on July 26, 1998, she slipped on a puddle of water in the women's restroom at the Radisson Hotel located at 1500 Canal Street in New Orleans, Louisiana. Plaintiffs subsequently brought suit against defendant Radisson Hotels International, Inc. ("Radisson") in state court and Radisson removed. Radisson now moves for summary judgment.
B. LAW AND ANALYSIS 1. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is proper if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating an absence of evidence to support the non-movant's case. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Where, as here, the opposing party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need not submit evidentiary documents to properly support its motion, but need only point out the absence of evidence supporting the essential elements of the opposing party's case. See Saunders v. Michelin Tire Corp., 942 F.2d 299, 301 (5th Cir. 1991). To oppose a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must set forth specific facts to establish a genuine issue of material fact, and cannot merely rest on allegations and denials. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2552. A genuine issue of fact exists where the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could return a verdict for the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Factual controversies are to be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (per curiam). See also Superior Merchandise Co., Inc. v. M.G.I. Wholesale, Inc., 52 U.S.P.Q.2d 1935 (E.D.La. 1999).
2. Discussion
Radisson argues that, under Louisiana law, as a licensor pursuant to an agreement with 1500 Canal Street Investors, LP ("Investors"), it cannot be held liable for injuries sustained by plaintiff in an accident which occurred at a hotel owned and operated by the licensee. Radisson's argument is premised entirely on Taylor v. Holiday Inn, Inc., 595 So.2d 735 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1992). In Taylor, the plaintiff claimed that she was injured when she slipped and fell on some liquid as she was entering the lounge of a Holiday Inn hotel in Kenner, Louisiana and brought suit against Holiday Inn, Inc. The Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Holiday Inn, Inc. neither owned nor managed the property on which the accident occurred, but instead only licensed the use of its trademarks, service marks, logos, sign designs and other distinctive characteristics to Kenner Management, Inc., which, in fact, owned and managed the property. Id. 4 at 736. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Holiday Inn, Inc.
The Court agrees with Radisson that Taylor controls the instant case and finds summary judgment appropriate. Just as in Taylor, plaintiffs' claims arise from a management problem water on the floor — and, under Radisson's "License Agreement" with Investors, Investors owns and manages the hotel at 1500 Canal Street. See License Agreement, attached as Defendant's Exhibit A, at p. 13 ("The power to regulate the day-to-day operation of the Hotel, including daily maintenance, safety concerns, working conditions and personnel matters are vested solely and exclusively in Licensee [ i.e. Investors]"). Thus, Investors is the proper defendant and plaintiffs' claims against Radisson must be dismissed.
Plaintiffs do not attempt to distinguish Taylor, nor do they offer any evidence that Radisson actually owned or managed the 1500 Canal Street hotel. Instead, plaintiffs argue that summary judgment is premature and that they should be allowed to conduct more discovery. However, given the express terms of the License Agreement and the holding in Taylor, the Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate how additional discovery will further their cause. See FED. R. Civ. P. 56(f).
C. CONCLUSION
Because the Court finds that no genuine issues of material fact exist as to the ownership and management of the Radisson Hotel at 1500 Canal Street and that further discovery will shed no further light on this issue, the Court finds summary judgment appropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Radisson Hotels International Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Radisson Hotels International Inc. are DISMISSED, each party to bear its own costs.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 13th day of March, 2000
MINUTE ENTRY AFRICK, M.J. March 13, 2000