Gonzalez v. Middletown Walmart SuperCenter Store 1959

Background

Carlos Gonzalez sued after he fell over a rug display in a store aisle. He alleged that Wal-Mart Stores East, LP negligently placed the rug and that the placement caused his injuries. The opinion states that the defendant was sued under several names, including Middletown Walmart Supercenter Store #1959, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Middletown I Resources, L.P.

The defendant moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the court determines that no important facts are genuinely disputed and that one side is entitled to judgment under the law.

Rule 11 signature issue

The court noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) requires a written motion to be signed by the lawyer of record, or personally by an unrepresented party. The defendant’s moving papers and reply had printed signature blocks but were not signed by its lawyer. The court nevertheless reviewed the parties’ filings and supporting documents.

Unresolved factual disputes

The court identified at least two genuine disputes of material fact—disputes about important facts that could affect the outcome.

First, the parties disputed whether the rug display was in a busy or high-traffic aisle when Gonzalez fell. The defendant relied on photographs that it said were taken immediately after the fall. The photographs showed an aisle without merchandise or people, but the court found that the aisle’s condition after the fall had limited or no value in showing what was happening when Gonzalez fell. The photographs did not disprove Gonzalez’s position that other events in the aisle may have distracted him from the rug display.

Second, the parties disputed whether furniture was intended to be placed on the rug display. Gonzalez argued that the display was unfinished because furniture was supposed to hold the rug in place and prevent it from moving. The defendant did not directly refute that assertion, and the court observed that one photograph appeared to show a nearby similar display with furniture on top of a rug.

The court concluded that both factual disputes related to whether the defendant was negligent in placing the rug display. It therefore found that the dispute was not suitable for resolution on summary judgment.

Ruling and next steps

The court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice to filing a new motion with papers that complied with Rule 11(a). The defendant could file a new motion by October 6, 2021, if it chose to do so. The parties were also directed to submit a revised statement of undisputed facts if a new motion was filed, and the defendant was required to address the factual issues identified by the court. If no new motion was filed by that date, the parties were directed to submit a proposed joint pretrial order by November 5, 2021. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion sequence.