This case involves a premises liability claim arising from plaintiff Jimmy Woodard's trip-and-fall accident in a Wal-Mart store, where he allegedly stubbed his foot on a box of weights left on the floor in an aisle. The court addressed Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff's motion for sanctions based on the alleged spoliation of a security videotape showing the area at the time of the fall, and related procedural motions. The court granted the sanctions motion in part, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Wal-Mart acted in bad faith by losing or destroying the videotape and that this prejudiced the plaintiff, which warranted a jury instruction on a rebuttable presumption that the tape contained evidence harmful to Wal-Mart regarding its knowledge of the hazard. It denied summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed on whether Wal-Mart had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard and whether the plaintiff exercised ordinary care, issues that the sanctions ruling helped establish for trial. The court also denied sanctions related to the failure to preserve the box itself and denied leave to file a sur-reply.
In Baker v. General Electric Capital Corp., the plaintiff sued the defendant credit furnisher under the FCRA for inaccurate reporting of a debt discharged in her husband's bankruptcy and also brought a state-law claim for credit defamation arising from collection attempts and credit score harm. The defendant moved to dismiss the defamation count on grounds that FCRA section 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts all state-law claims against furnishers. The court denied the motion, reasoning that section 1681t(b) preempts only state statutory requirements and does not reach common-law tort actions, which remain subject to the narrower preemption rule in section 1681h(e).
Hattie Dickerson, a nurse of Spanish and Native American descent at a VA medical center, filed Title VII claims alleging race/national origin discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment after reporting harassment of a colleague, which led to her own harassment by other nurses, a lowered performance review, and related incidents. In ruling on the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court granted it in part and denied it in part, allowing her discrimination and retaliation claims to proceed because the defendants failed to show the absence of triable issues, and also denying summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim stemming from nurse harassment. The court granted summary judgment on the portions of the hostile work environment claim based on requests for medical information and ward assignments, finding those did not properly support such a claim under Title VII. The decision was based on viewing facts in the light most favorable to Dickerson and determining that defendants had not met their burden for summary judgment on the viable claims.
This case challenged a Georgia statute that prohibits carrying weapons in places of worship. Plaintiffs, including a gun rights organization, a church, and licensed gun owners, argued that the law violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms and First Amendment right to free exercise of religion by preventing them from carrying firearms for self-defense during worship services. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim. The court reasoned that places of worship qualify as sensitive places where firearm restrictions are permissible under the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, and that the law does not substantially burden religious exercise.
In this case, Plaintiff Terry Tindall sought to compel production of attorney-client communications from Defendants H & S Homes and related entities, alleging they were used to facilitate fraudulent transfers of assets to avoid paying a $343,100 judgment. Defendants asserted attorney-client privilege. After in camera review, the court found Plaintiff had established a prima facie case that the communications furthered fraudulent transfers under the Georgia Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act, triggering the crime-fraud exception to privilege. The court granted the motion to compel in part, ordering production of communications related to the closure of H & S Homes and creation of successor entities like Triangle Homes.