UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HEIDI M. PIZZO and JAMES PIZZO,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 09-11489

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., d/b/a

T.J. MAXX

Defendant.

____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit after Plaintiff Heidi M. Pizzo allegedly was injured

while shopping at a T.J. Maxx store on March 31, 2008. In an amended complaint filed

November 10, 2009, Plaintiffs assert negligence (Count I) and premises liability (Count

II) claims against Defendant. This Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332.

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on September 22, 2011. The motion has been

fully briefed. On November 7, 2011, the Honorable John Corbett O’Meara disqualified

himself from the matter and it was reassigned to the undersigned. This Court held a

motion hearing with respect to Defendant’s motion on December 13, 2011.

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

2:09-cv-11489-PJD-PJK Doc # 98 Filed 12/14/11 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1676
2

Fed R. Civ. P. 56(a). The central inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient

disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party

must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251–52,

106 S. Ct. 2505, 2512 (1986). After adequate time for discovery and upon motion, Rule

56 mandates summary judgment against a party who fails to establish the existence of an

element essential to that party's case and on which that party bears the burden of proof at

trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986).

The movant has an initial burden of showing “the absence of a genuine issue of

material fact.” Id. at 323, 106 S. Ct. at 2553. Once the movant meets this burden, the

“nonmoving party must come forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine

issue for trial.’” Matsushita Electric Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587,

106 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). To demonstrate a genuine

issue, the nonmoving party must present sufficient evidence upon which a jury could

reasonably find for that party; a “scintilla of evidence” is insufficient. See Liberty Lobby,

477 U.S. at 252, 106 S. Ct. at 2512. The court must accept as true the non-movant’s

evidence and draw “all justifiable inferences” in the non-movant's favor. See id. at 255,

106 S. Ct. at 2513.

Defendant asserts three arguments in support of its summary judgment motion.

First, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs lack evidence, beyond conjecture and

speculation, that there was a hazardous condition on Defendant’s premises or a cause-infact relationship between the alleged condition and Ms. Pizzo’s alleged injuries. Second,

2:09-cv-11489-PJD-PJK Doc # 98 Filed 12/14/11 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1677
3

Defendant argues that, even if a dangerous condition existed, it was open and obvious. 

Finally, Defendant contends that it did not have notice of the dangerous condition prior to

the accident.

This Court has reviewed the parties’ pleadings, including the deposition testimony

filed in support of and in opposition to Defendant’s motion, and heard counsels’

arguments at the motion hearing. Viewing that evidence in a light most favorable to

Plaintiffs– as this Court must at this stage of the proceedings– the Court finds a genuine

issue of material fact with respect to the issues raised by Defendant. The Court therefore

concludes that Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED

Date: December 14, 2011 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Terry L. Cochran, Esq.

Anthony T. Pieti, Esq.

Loretta M. Ames, Esq.

2:09-cv-11489-PJD-PJK Doc # 98 Filed 12/14/11 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1678