The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHERYL MULLIGAN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 20-697
WAL-MART INC. SECTION: “G”(4)
ORDER
In this litigation, Plaintiff Cheryl Mulligan (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she sustained personal
injuries when she slipped and fell while shopping at Wal-Mart in Kenner, Louisiana as a result of
Defendant Wal-Mart, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) negligence.1 Before the Court is Defendant’s “Motion
for Summary Judgment.”2 The instant motion was noticed for submission on February 24, 2021.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, any opposition to a motion must be filed eight days before the noticed
submission date. At a status conference before the Court on February 23, 2021, counsel for
Plaintiff stated that Plaintiff does not oppose the motion and does not object to dismissal of this
action.
This Court has authority to grant a motion as unopposed, although it is not required to do
so.3 District courts may grant an unopposed motion as long as the motion has merit.4 Under
Louisiana law, a plaintiff who seeks to recover on a negligence claim brought against a merchant
1 Rec. Doc. 1-1 at 1.
2 Rec. Doc. 15.
3 Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 356 (5th Cir. 1993).
4 See Braly v. Trail, 254 F.3d 1082 (5th Cir. 2001).
1
by a person lawfully on the merchant’s premises for damages as a result of an injury, death, or loss
sustained because of a fall due to a condition existing in or on a merchant’s premises must prove
that ‘“[t]he merchant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition which
caused the damage, prior to the occurrence.”° In the instant motion, Defendant argues that
Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed because “‘no genuine issues of material fact exist concerning
[Defendant’s] creation or actual or constructive notice of the condition on the premises.”®
Considering Defendant’s argument in light of Louisiana law and Plaintiff's counsel’s
representation that Plaintiff does not oppose dismissal of this action, the Court finds that the instant
motion has merit. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Wal-Mart, Inc.’s “Motion for Summary
Judgment”’ is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims asserted by Plaintiff Cheryl Mulligan against
Defendant Wal-Mart, Inc. are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 2>"Riay of February, 2021.
NANNETTE JOLI TE BROWN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
> La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.6.
® Rec. Doc. 15-1 at 4.
7 Rec. Doc. 15.