Holt v. Walsh Group
Civil Action No. 2017-1173
| D.D.C. | Sep 6, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Cecil Holt was injured while working on the roof of 402 Tingey Street, SE in Washington, D.C.; he sued Walsh Group and various subcontractors for negligence.
- Case removed to federal court on diversity jurisdiction grounds (28 U.S.C. § 1332).
- Walsh Group moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing that Walsh Construction Co. II, LLC (Walsh Construction) — not Walsh Group — supervised the site.
- Holt alleged Walsh Group had involvement or responsibility for the premises, submitted an affidavit describing Walsh signage and employee contacts, and attached documents showing shared contact information between Walsh Group and Walsh Construction.
- Walsh Group described itself as a holding company that does not own shares in or act as agent for Walsh Construction; factual disputes remained about control of the site and the entities’ relationship.
- Court denied dismissal and summary judgment without prejudice, found Holt stated a plausible negligence claim against Walsh Group, and granted leave to amend to add Walsh Construction; set deadlines for amendment and a scheduling conference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint states a plausible negligence claim against Walsh Group | Holt says Walsh Group was involved/responsible for the premises (signs, employee contacts) | Walsh Group says it is merely a holding company and not the site supervisor; proper defendant is Walsh Construction | Denied dismissal: complaint facially plausible; claim survives Iqbal standard |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate on control and entity-relationship issues | Discovery needed to determine which Walsh entity controlled the site and their relationship | Walsh Group argues no genuine dispute; it is not liable | Denied summary judgment: material factual disputes about control and entity relationship remain |
| Whether plaintiff may amend to add Walsh Construction | Requests leave to amend if Walsh Construction is proper party | Defendants did not oppose amendment as improper here | Granted leave to amend to add Walsh Construction under Rule 15 |
| Whether court should permit further proceedings (scheduling) | Plaintiff seeks time to amend and pursue discovery | Defendants sought resolution on current pleadings | Court set amendment and response deadlines and scheduled initial conference |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a claim that is plausible on its face)
- Demissie v. Starbucks Corp. Office & Headquarters, 19 F. Supp. 3d 321 (D.D.C.) (documents attached to a complaint or motion may be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Kaempe v. Myers, 367 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir.) (same)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute as to any material fact for summary judgment analysis)
- Convertino v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 684 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir.) (courts are reluctant to grant summary judgment without full discovery)
- Taylor v. FDIC, 132 F.3d 753 (D.C. Cir.) (same)
- Baker v. Henderson, 150 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C.) (reluctance to grant summary judgment before adequate discovery)
- Johnson v. Veterans Affairs Med. Ctr., 133 F. Supp. 3d 10 (D.D.C.) (granting leave to amend under Rule 15)