Court Opinion

ID: 9952945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 00:00:44.826527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:44.461012
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30392            Document: 43-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/20/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                            Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                    March 20, 2024
                                     No. 23-30392
                                   ____________                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
Jessica Mackey,

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                          versus

American Multi-Cinema, Incorporated,

                                             Defendant—Appellee.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                            USDC No. 2:20-CV-1350
                   ______________________________

Before Richman, Chief Judge, Stewart, Circuit Judge, and Hanks,
District Judge.†
Per Curiam:*
       Jessica Mackey (“Mackey”) appeals the district court’s denial of her
motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(6). For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.

       _____________________
       †
          United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by
designation.
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30392        Document: 43-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/20/2024

                                  No. 23-30392

       I.    FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       On May 4, 2019, Mackey, accompanied by her husband, walked
towards the entrance of the American Multi-Cinema’s (“AMC”) West Bank
Palace 16 movie theater in Harvey, Louisiana. Mackey tripped and fell face
forward, after the tip of her sandal caught what she alleges to be “uneven
concrete” in the sidewalk that she claims was caused by a faulty expansion
joint. Although Mackey states that she tried to brace the fall with her hands,
she alleges that she struck the sidewalk with her forehead and blacked out for
a few minutes. According to Mackey, as a result of the fall, she suffered
serious bodily injuries.
       Mackey sued AMC alleging that it negligently failed to keep its
premises reasonably safe or warn patrons about the faulty expansion joint.
AMC moved for summary judgment. The district court granted AMC’s
motion, concluding that Mackey failed to create a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether the expansion joint was unreasonably dangerous.
       On appeal, this court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment
in favor of AMC. See Mackey v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., No. 21-30687, 2022
WL 2070393 (5th Cir. June 8, 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1084 (2023).
Mackey timely petitioned for panel rehearing and filed two additional letters
under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) in support of her petition.
This court denied rehearing.
       Mackey timely filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States
Supreme Court in which she made similar arguments to those she had raised
on appeal before this court. Mackey’s petition was scheduled for
consideration at the Supreme Court’s cert conference on March 31, 2023.
Shortly after Mackey’s case was calendared for conference, the Louisiana
Supreme Court issued Farrell v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 359 So. 3d 467 (La.
2023). In Farrell, the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the application of
Louisiana’s risk-utility balancing test in the context of a motion for summary

                                       2
Case: 23-30392         Document: 43-1       Page: 3     Date Filed: 03/20/2024

                                  No. 23-30392

judgment. Farrell held that whether a condition is “open and obvious” is
something to be considered in the risk-utility balancing test or breach-of-duty
analysis, rather than the existence of a duty analysis. Farrell, 359 So.3d at 478.
The Louisiana Supreme Court clarified further that although “the breach of
the duty element involves a mixed question of law and fact, summary
judgment is not necessarily precluded.” Id. Mackey then filed a supplemental
brief with the United States Supreme Court, asserting that Farrell was
applicable to the issue raised in her cert petition. Therein, she requested that
the Court issue an order granting her petition for writ of certiorari, vacating
the district court’s judgment in light of the Farrell decision, and remanding
the case to this court. The Supreme Court denied Mackey’s petition.
       Subsequently,     Mackey     filed   a    Rule   60(b)(6)    motion    for
reconsideration with the district court. In her motion she argued that
Farrell’s clarification that the “open and obvious” doctrine is properly
analyzed under the breach-of-duty prong (as opposed to the duty prong) of
the risk-utility test constituted an extraordinary circumstance that justified
reopening this fully appealed and long-closed case. Farrell, 359 So.3d at 479–
80. The district court denied Mackey’s motion. She timely appealed the
district court’s denial of her motion to this court.
                   II.    STANDARD OF REVIEW
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), “the [district]
court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for . . . any . . . reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)(6). While the rule provides that “[a] motion under Rule 60(b)
must be made within a reasonable time,” there is no express deadline for a
Rule 60(b)(6) motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). We review a district court’s
decision on a Rule 60(b)(6) motion based on interpretation of state law for
abuse of discretion. Batts v. Tow-Motor Forklift Co., 66 F.3d 743, 751 (5th Cir.
1995); see also Hall v. Louisiana, 884 F.3d 546, 549 (5th Cir. 2018). “A district

                                        3
Case: 23-30392        Document: 43-1       Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/20/2024

                                 No. 23-30392

court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an erroneous view of the
law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Hesling v. CSX
Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir. 2005).
                         III.     DISCUSSION
       On appeal, Mackey argues that Farrell represents change of the
relevant law governing her premises liability claim in the underlying
proceedings thus necessitating the reopening of her suit against AMC.
Likewise, she argues that the district court erred in denying her motion for
relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). We disagree.
       At issue in Mackey’s Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider is the relevancy
of the Farrell decision as it pertains to the district court’s summary judgment
in favor of AMC. In Farrell, the Louisiana Supreme Court reasoned in
pertinent part:
       Liability is determined utilizing a duty/risk analysis. Generally,
       there exists a duty to maintain one’s property in a reasonably
       safe condition and to correct an unreasonably dangerous
       condition or to warn of its existence. The question of whether
       a condition is open and obvious and, thus, not unreasonably
       dangerous, is an issue of breach, not duty. To determine if
       there has been a breach of a duty owed, courts are to apply the
       risk/utility balancing test. The second factor of the risk/utility
       balancing test includes the likelihood and magnitude of harm,
       which includes the open and obvious nature of the condition.
       Summary judgment on the issue of an unreasonably dangerous
       condition is warranted upon a finding that no reasonable juror
       could have found that the defendant was in breach of the duty.
       If the defendant meets that burden of proof, and the plaintiff
       fails to establish that he or she will be able to establish the
       breach element at trial, summary judgment in favor of the
       defendant is mandated.

Farrell, 359 So.3d at 479–80 (internal citations removed).

                                       4
Case: 23-30392        Document: 43-1       Page: 5    Date Filed: 03/20/2024

                                 No. 23-30392

       Here, the district court denied Mackey’s motion for reconsideration
for two reasons: (1) Farrell was “not directly relevant to the resolution of
AMC’s motion and the ultimate dismissal of Mackey’s case,” and (2) the
United States Supreme Court had already considered the merits of Farrell’s
application to Mackey’s case when it denied her petition for certiorari. To
prevail on appeal, Mackey is required to demonstrate that Farrell changed
the law upon which the district court relied in dismissing her premises
liability claim against AMC. She fails to do so.
       In its order granting AMC’s motion for summary judgment, the
district court concluded that Mackey “does not claim that her view of the
expansion joint itself was obscured by the light drizzle or nonpressure-
washed condition of the sidewalk at the time of the accident . . . and the great
weight of Louisiana jurisprudence holds that the deviation at issue here does
not present an unreasonable risk of harm under the four prongs of the risk-
utility test.” Similarly, we held in Mackey’s first appeal that, under
Louisiana’s jurisprudence, pavement deviations of the height involved in
Mackey’s case did not present an unreasonable risk of harm. As we noted in
that appeal, “all agree that the pavement height deviation was between ¾ to
⅞ of an inch, and Louisiana courts have repeatedly held that deviations of this
height or higher do not present an unreasonable risk of harm.” Mackey v. Am.
Multi-Cinema, Inc., No. 21-30687, 2022 WL 2070393 (5th Cir. June 8,
2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1084 (2023). Farrell does not impact either this
court’s or the district court’s conclusions because it did not change Louisiana
law on pavement deviations. Id. Moreover, Mackey’s argument that her cert
petition was pending with the United States Supreme Court when Farrell was
decided is of no consequence as we have now determined that Farrell has no
effect on the district court’s dismissal of her claims against AMC.
Accordingly,    Mackey     has    failed   to   demonstrate     “extraordinary
circumstances” warranting relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). As the

                                       5
Case: 23-30392        Document: 43-1       Page: 6    Date Filed: 03/20/2024

                                 No. 23-30392

district court noted, “[o]n March 23, 2023, Mackey filed a supplemental
brief with the United States Supreme Court to inform it of the Farrell
decision and request a ‘GVR order’—that is, an order granting a writ of
certiorari, vacating the judgment below in in light of the Farrell decision, and
remanding the case to the Fifth Circuit for consideration in line with that
decision. The Supreme Court, thus fully aware of the Farrell decision, denied
Mackey’s writ petition on April 3, 2023.” Consequently, we hold that
Mackey has failed to sufficiently allege any reversible error on behalf of the
district court as to its order denying her motion for relief from judgment
pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6).
                         IV.     CONCLUSION
       For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s denial of Mackey’s Rule
60(b)(6) motion for reconsideration is AFFIRMED.

                                       6