Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-20182/USCOURTS-ca5-24-20182-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kroger Company
Appellee
Kroger Texas, L.P.
Appellee
Ryan Edward Miller
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-20182

____________

Ryan Edward Miller, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

The Kroger Company; Kroger Texas, L.P., 

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CV-587

______________________________

Before Smith, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

This appeal concerns a premises liability claim originally brought in 

Texas state court against the Kroger Company and Kroger Texas, L.P. (collectively “Kroger”). Plaintiff Ryan Edward Miller alleged he slipped and fell 

in a Krogerstore in Seabrook, Texas, resulting in head injuries that prevented 

him from remembering the circumstances of the fall. Kroger removed the 

lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 6, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-20182 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2024
No. 24-20182

2

and, after Miller filed an amended complaint, moved to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim.

1

The district court granted the motion to dismiss on February 14, 2024, 

dismissing Miller’s claim with prejudice. The court reasoned that “[t]he factual allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fall woefully short of establishing any of the elements for his premises liability claim because he does 

not and cannot state what the condition was that allegedly caused his injuries.” Accordingly, the court ruled that Miller’s allegationsfailed to meet the 

pleading standard articulated in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544

(2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). After the district court denied his motion for reconsideration, Miller timely appealed.

We have reviewed the briefs, the record, the applicable law, and the 

oral arguments of counsel. Essentially for the reasons given by the district 

court, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

_____________________

1 Although Kroger filed the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 

the district court construed it under Rule 12(c) because it was filed after Kroger answered 

Miller’s amended complaint. A Rule 12(c) motion is evaluated under the same standard as 

a 12(b)(6) motion. See, e.g., Laviage v. Fite, 47 F.4th 402, 405 (5th Cir. 2022).

Case: 24-20182 Document: 47-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2024