The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
YAJAIRA CORBEILLE CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS CASE NO. 22-3274
JCC FULTON DEVELOPMENT, LLC SECTION: “G”(2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant JCC Fulton Development, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Motion for
Summary Judgment.1 Defendant asserts that summary judgment is appropriate because Plaintiff
Yajaira Corbeille (“Plaintiff”) cannot prove an essential element to her premises liability claim,
namely, that Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the underlying condition which
Plaintiff alleges caused her injuries.2 Plaintiff opposes the motion submitting that Defendant’s
upkeep of the hotel fell below hotel standards.3 In further support of the motion, Defendant argues
that the hotel employees acted reasonably and appropriately.4 For the reasons discussed in more
detail below, the Court finds that questions of material fact remain in dispute. Accordingly, having
considered the motion, the memoranda in support and in opposition, the reply, the record, and the
applicable law, the Court denies the motion.
1 Rec. Doc. 46.
2 Rec. Doc. 46-1 at 1.
3 Rec. Doc. 48.
4 Rec. Doc. 57.
I. Background
Plaintiff alleges that on March 2, 2021, she was injured after slipping and falling due to
water on the floor of the bathroom within her hotel room, Room 2212, owned by Defendant.5
Plaintiff alleges that the water on the floor of the bathroom was a result of a leak in the bathroom
plumbing.6 Plaintiff alleges that she suffered severe physical and mental injuries as a result of the
incident.7
On February 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans.8 On September 14, 2022, Defendant removed the case to this Court.9 On September 5,
2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment.10 On September 11, 2023,
Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.11 On September 20, 2023, with
leave of Court, Defendant filed a Reply Memorandum in further support of the motion.12
II. Parties’ Arguments
A. Defendant’s Argument in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant argues that summary judgment is appropriate because Plaintiff cannot prove an
essential element of her premises liability claim, namely, that Defendant had actual or constructive
5 Rec. Doc. 1-1 at 6.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 7.
8 Rec. Doc. 1-1.
9 Rec. Doc. 1.
10 Rec. Doc. 46.
11 Rec. Doc. 48.
12 Rec. Doc. 57.
knowledge of the toilet leak in the hotel room.13 Defendant submits that the bathroom at issue was
inspected by a plumber five days before the alleged incident, on February 25, 2021, and the toilet
was not leaking.14 Defendant contends that the hotel room was occupied the entire week leading
up to Plaintiff’s stay with no other work orders generated in connection to a plumbing issue.15
Defendant avers that the undisputed facts confirm that Plaintiff and her husband occupied the hotel
room for nearly two days before the alleged incident and did not make any complaints with hotel
staff.16
Defendant avers that the hotel’s housekeeping coordinator testified that the guest room
attendants clean the rooms, including bathrooms, which are then inspected by their supervisors
before being released for occupancy.17 Defendant submits that there were not any plumbing issues
identified in Room 2212 aside from the work performed on February 25, 2021, and the work
performed on March 2, 2021.18 Defendant contends that discovery is closed and Plaintiff will not
be able to meet her burden at trial.19
B. Plaintiff’s Argument in Opposition of the Motion for Summary Judgment
In opposition, Plaintiff submits that a plumber, James Darce, inspected the bathroom after
the accident on March 2, 2021, discovered that the toilet tank was loose and tightened the tank.20
13 Rec. Doc. 46-1 at 1.
14 Id. at 7.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 8.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 14.
20 Rec. Doc. 48 at 2.
Plaintiff contends that the hotel is supposed to perform annual preventive maintenance checks on
the plumbing appliances in guest rooms, including checks for loose toilet tanks.21 Plaintiff avers
that on February 24, 2021, just four days before Plaintiff checked into Room 2212, Carl Franklin
entered a work order for a leaking toilet tank in Room 2212.22 Plaintiff asserts that a plumber,
Nicholas Dykes, went into Room 2212 on February 25, 2021, and noted on the work order that the
toilet was not actually leaking, but rather the sink SJ joint needed to be changed.23 Plaintiff points
out that Mr. Dykes testified that a loose toilet tank may not result in a leak each and every time the
toilet is used.24 Plaintiff submits that this testimony alone serves to defeat Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment because Plaintiff was in the room from February 28, 2023, until 7:00 A.M. on
March 2, 2021, when the accident occurred, without a water leak.25
Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Darce testified that preventative maintenance in hotel rooms could
take fifteen minutes to two hours.26 Plaintiff avers that records show that preventive maintenance
was done in less time in recent years.27 Plaintiff submits that Mr. Darce testified that there were
no checklists for preventive maintenance, contrary to Mr. Dykes’ testimony.28 Plaintiff states that
Mr. Darce testified that it was rare for a sink plumbing problem to cause water to leave the sink
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 3.
25 Id.
26 Id. at 4.
27 Id. at 12.
28 Id. at 4.
and puddle the floor.29 Plaintiff argues that the testimony and lack of any documents to support
the investigation performed by Mr. Dykes could support a finding that Mr. Dykes’ opinion that
the toilet was not leaking on February 25, 2021 was not credible.30
Plaintiff asserts that documents reveal that plumbing preventative maintenance was not
performed annually for Room 2212, which Plaintiff asserts also creates a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether Defendant should have known of the risk of plumbing issues.31
C. Defendant’s Argument in Further Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant reargues that Plaintiff and her husband occupied the hotel room for two full days
before the alleged incident and did not report any issues with the bathroom or toilet.32 Defendant
contends that the inconsistencies in the hotel’s preventative maintenance are irrelevant to the issue
of notice.33 Defendant avers that based on Mr. Dykes’ work order on February 25, 2021, stating
“It was not leaking in toilet. But in sink. Replaced SJ nut,” it is logical to conclude that Mr. Dykes
checked the toilet.34 Defendant points out that Mr. Dykes testified that it is his usual procedure to
check all plumbing fixtures when he inspects a guestroom.35 Thus, Defendant moves for the Court
to grant summary judgment.36
29 Id. at 5.
30 Id.
31 Id. at 8.
32 Rec. Doc. 57.
33 Id. at 3.
34 Id. at 3.
35 Id. at 4.
36 Id. at 8.
III. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits
demonstrate “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.”37 To decide whether a genuine dispute as to any material fact exists, the court
considers “all of the evidence in the record but refrain[s] from making credibility determinations
or weighing the evidence.”38 All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving
party.39 Yet “unsupported allegations or affidavits setting forth ‘ultimate or conclusory facts and
conclusions of law’ are insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment.”40
If the entire record “could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party,” then
no genuine issue of fact exists and, consequently, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.41 The nonmoving party may not rest upon the pleadings.42 Instead, the nonmoving
party must identify specific facts in the record and articulate the precise manner in which that
evidence establishes a genuine issue for trial.43
The party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of showing the
basis for its motion and identifying record evidence that demonstrates the absence of a genuine
37 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994).
38 Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398–99 (5th Cir. 2008)
(citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000)).
39 Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Reeves, 530 U.S. at
150).
40 Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985); Little, 37 F.3d at 1075.
41 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting First Nat’l Bank of
Ariz. v. Cites Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968)).
42 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).
43 See id.; Ragas v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998).
issue of material fact.44 “To satisfy this burden, the movant may either (1) submit evidentiary
documents that negate the existence of some material element of the opponent’s claim or defense,
or (2) if the crucial issue is one on which the opponent will bear the ultimate burden of proof at
trial, demonstrate that the evidence in the record insufficiently supports an essential element of the
opponent’s claim or defense.”45 If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden shifts to
the nonmoving party to “identify specific evidence in the record, and to articulate” precisely how
that evidence supports the nonmoving party’s claims.46 The nonmoving party must set forth
“specific facts showing the existence of a ‘genuine’ issue concerning every essential component
of its case.”47
The nonmovant’s burden of demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact is not satisfied
merely by creating “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,” “by conclusory allegations,
by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence.”48 Moreover, the nonmoving party
may not rest upon mere allegations or denials in its pleadings.49
IV. Analysis
Under Louisiana law, a person who owns or controls a building is liable for harm caused
by its defect, but only when the plaintiff can prove the following elements: (1) ownership or control
of the building, (2) the owner knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of
44 Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323.
45 Duplantis v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 948 F.2d 187, 190 (5th Cir. 1991) (internal citation omitted).
46 Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 871 (1994); see also Morris
v. Covan World Wide Moving, Inc., 144 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 1998).
47 Morris, 144 F.3d at 380; see also Bellard v. Gautreaux, 675 F.3d 454, 460 (5th Cir. 2012).
48 Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
49 Morris, 144 F.3d at 380.
the ruin or defect, (3) the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care,
(4) the defendant failed to exercise such reasonable care, and (5) causation.50 If plaintiff fails to
prove any one element of cause of action in a negligence or premises liability action by
preponderance of evidence, defendant is not liable.51 A plaintiff alleging damages under
Louisiana Civil Code article 2322 must show the owner knew, or in the exercise of reasonable
care, should have known of the ruin or defect. Constructive knowledge imposes a reasonable duty
on the owner of the building to discover apparent defects under the owner’s garde.52 Constructive
knowledge of a vice, ruin or defect may exist if the conditions that caused the injury existed for
such a period of time that those responsible, by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, must
have known of their existence in general and could have guarded the public from injury.53
Defendant argues that summary judgment is appropriate since Plaintiff cannot prove that
Defendant had actual or constructive notice of the water leak, considering Plaintiff occupied the
hotel room for two days before reporting the leak.54 In opposition, Plaintiff points to certain hotel
practices that falls below the hotel standard and submits certain deposition testimony that may
suggest that the water leak was due to a loose toilet tank.55
50 Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Bldgs., 2012-1238 (La. 4/5/13); 113 So. 3d 175, 182–; see also
LA. CIV. CODE arts. 2317.1, 2322.
51 Lambert v. Zurich American Insurance Company, 55,064 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/28/23); 366 So. 3d 1285, 1291.
52 Dufrene v. Gautreau Family LLC, 07-467 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/22/08); 980 So. 2d 68, 80; Meaux v. Wendy's
Intern., Inc., 10-111 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/26/10), 51 So. 3d 778, 788.
53 Casborn v. Jefferson Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 11-1020 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/22/12); 96 So. 3d 540, 543); Charan
v. Bowman, 06-0882 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/1/07), 965 So. 2d 466.
54 Rec. Doc. 46.
55 Id.
The undisputed evidence in the record shows that on February 25, 2021, plumber Nicholas
Dykes responded to a work order for Room 2212 classified as “Guest room, guest bathroom,
toilet.”56 Dykes’s notes from the work order state, “It was not leaking in toilet. But in sink.
Replaced sj nut.”57 During his deposition, Dykes testified that he could not recall performing this
repair, and he could not recall how he determined that the sink was leaking rather than the toilet.58
James Darce, the plumber who responded after Plaintiff’s accident on March 2, 2021,
repaired a lose toilet tank.59 Five days earlier, in response to a work order regarding an issue with
the toilet, Dykes only replaced a sj nut in the sink. Dykes acknowledged that a lose toilet tank may
not result in a leak every time that a toilet is used.60 The issue of whether Dykes could have
discovered the lose toilet tank on February 25, 2021 is a question of fact for the jury. A reasonable
jury could conclude that Dykes should have performed additional inspections of the toilet to
determine whether further repairs were needed. Therefore, summary judgment must be denied
because genuine questions of material fact remain in dispute regarding whether Defendant had
constructive notice of the condition.
V. Conclusion
As there are genuine questions of material fact in dispute as to whether Defendant had
constructive notice of the condition that led to Plaintiff’s accident, which is one theory of recovery
56 Rec. Doc. 46-2 at 2; Rec. Doc. 48-1 at 2.
57 Rec. Doc. 46-2 at 2; Rec. Doc. 48-1 at 2.
58 Rec. Doc. 48-3 at 18.
59 Rec, Doc, 46-2 at 2.
60 Rec. Doc. 48-3 at 19.
available under Louisiana’s premises liability statute, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion for Summary Judgment”®! is
DENIED.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 2nd day of October, 2023.
easette obuett Us
NANNETTE JQVIVETTE BROWN □□□
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6! Rec. Doc. 46.