Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00420/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00420-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 23:134 P.I.- Auto Negligence

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ASHLEY H. THOMPSON, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-420-WHA

 )

RUBEN GARZA, ) (WO)

 )

Defendant. )

 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the court on a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #29) filed

by Defendant Ruben Garza. 

The Plaintiffs, Ashley H. Thompson, Jo. Thompson (a minor child), Ju. Thompson (a

minor child), and Ronald C. Thompson, filed a Complaint in this case bringing claims of

negligence (Count One), wantonness (Count Two), and loss of consortium (Count Three). 

Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship in that the Plaintiffs are citizens of Alabama and

the Defendant is a citizen Texas, and the requisite amount is in controversy. Another

Defendant, also a citizen of Texas, was previously granted summary judgment in this case.

The remaining Defendant, Ruben Garza, has moved for summary judgment as to the

wantonness count of the Complaint, and as to the loss of consortium claims asserted by the

minor children within Count Three of the Complaint. Garza is not moving for summary

judgment as to the negligence count or Plaintiff Ronald Thompson’s loss of consortium claim

within Count Three of the Complaint. 

Case 2:06-cv-00420-WHA-TFM Document 32 Filed 03/22/07 Page 1 of 3
1

 Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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 a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 322 (1986).

2

Garza has moved for summary judgment as to the wantonness count arguing that there is

no evidence that his conduct would constitute wantonness under Alabama law. In their

Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiffs concede that the facts in this case

do not support a claim of wantonness.1

 Accordingly, summary judgment is due to be granted to

Garza as to Count Two of the Complaint.

Garza also has moved for summary judgment as to the loss of consortium claims asserted

in Count Three by the minor children for the loss of consortium of Ashley Thompson, citing to

Patterson v. Hayes, 623 So. 2d 1142, 1146 (Ala. 1993). The Plaintiffs concede that a claim for

loss of parental consortium is not recognized under Alabama law.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #29) is hereby GRANTED and

Judgment is entered in favor of Ruben Garza and against Ashley H. Thompson, Ju. Thompson,

Jo. Thompson, and Ronald Thompson on the wantonness claim in Count Two of the Complaint

and on the claims for loss of parental consortium asserted by the minor children within Count

Three of the Complaint.

2. The case will proceed on the negligence claims of Ashley and Ju. Thompson asserted

in Count One, and on the loss of consortium claim brought by Ronald Thompson in Count Three

of the Complaint.

Case 2:06-cv-00420-WHA-TFM Document 32 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 3
3

Done this 22nd day of March, 2007.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton 

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00420-WHA-TFM Document 32 Filed 03/22/07 Page 3 of 3