Opinion ID: 161014
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Proposed Instructions Regarding Summary Judgment.

Text: 100 Finally, Dillard's argues that the district court erred by refusing to give a proposed instruction regarding the district court's grant of summary judgment to Dillard's on the plaintiffs' false imprisonment claims. Specifically, Dillard's contends that the district court's summary judgment ruling conclusively established that Mr. Wilson acted with probable cause when he stopped Ms. Hampton and Ms. Cooper and that he stopped them at the nexus of the store and the mall. 101 Under Rule 56(d), summary adjudication of only some of the claims imposes a duty on the trial court to `if practicable' articulate what facts are established and which remain controverted. Anixter v. Home-Stake Prod. Co., 977 F.2d 1533, 1548 (10th Cir. 1992). Here, the district court granted summary judgment to Dillard's on the false imprisonment claims and a subset of the § 1981 claims, but allowed the § 1981 claim based upon the coupon to proceed. We agree with the district court that that record is different from the record which [was developed before trial on the coupon claim] and the Court's summary judgment order is immaterial. Aplt's App. vol. 4, at 1184 (Tr. of instruction conference). 102 As noted above, even if the stop complied with state law, Dillard's is not necessarily shielded from liability under § 1981. See Tanner, 879 F.2d at 580 n.5 (mere compliance with the procedural requisites of state law would not shield [officers] from liability under § 1983). Furthermore, there were no findings in the summary judgment order as to Mr. Wilson's subjective beliefs and the store's policies allegedly based on them. 103 Section 1981 is a unique and powerful statute that focuses on motivation behind a particular action. Whether Mr. Wilson committed a state tort in his fruitless search of Ms. Hampton's belongings is not dispositive of why he targeted her in the first place. For those reasons, the jury was entitled to consider, along with Mr. Wilson's testimony, the testimony of Ms. Chouteau, Ms. Hampton and Ms. Cooper, and the demonstrative evidence. The district court's instruction properly stated the law regarding the issues before the jury and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to give the store's proposed instruction. 104