HomeLife in the Gardens, LLC v. Landry
2:16-cv-15549
E.D. La.Jan 9, 2018Background
- HomeLife in the Gardens, LLC and Donald E. Rankey, Jr. (counterclaim-defendants) moved for summary judgment on all counterclaims asserted by Leigh Landry; the motion was unopposed and Landry’s untimely opposition was denied.
- Landry asserted multiple counterclaims against the counterclaim-defendants, including Title VII hostile-work-environment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, whistleblower claim, Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act claim, defamation, fraud, and assault and battery.
- The counterclaim-defendants submitted uncontroverted evidence supporting dismissal of all counterclaims except assault and battery.
- During deposition Landry made serious, contradictory statements (including accusing former counsel of causing his son’s death by drunken boating), admitted she “made it up,” and otherwise contradicted prior sworn statements about how she was removed from the premises.
- The court found Landry’s deposition testimony called her credibility into question and might amount to perjury, but concluded dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction better reserved for clear contumacious conduct where lesser sanctions would not suffice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counterclaim-defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Landry’s multiple counterclaims | Landry opposed, but her opposition was untimely and denied | Counterclaim-defendants argued undisputed facts entitle them to judgment on all counterclaims except sanction-related issues | Granted summary judgment for defendants on Title VII hostile-work-environment, IIED, whistleblower, LUTPA, defamation, and fraud; denied as to assault and battery |
| Whether Landry’s deposition testimony (possible perjury) warrants dismissal with prejudice of assault and battery claim | Landry’s inconsistent/contradictory testimony undermines credibility but does not automatically justify dismissal | Defendants argued perjury justified dismissal with prejudice of assault and battery claim | Court declined to dismiss; held dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction and lesser sanctions may suffice; assault and battery claim survives |
| Standard for granting an unopposed summary judgment motion | Landry implicitly contended facts raise disputes but failed to timely oppose | Defendants relied on Rule 56 record and Fifth Circuit authority permitting unopposed summary judgment when undisputed facts support judgment | Court applied Rule 56 principles and Fifth Circuit precedent and granted summary judgment on most claims because undisputed record supported judgment |
| Appropriate sanction for litigant misconduct (perjury/credibility issues) | Landry: not argued in timely opposition | Defendants: sought dismissal of assault claim as sanction for alleged perjury | Court: monetary or lesser sanctions preferable; would consider motion for less extreme sanctions; warned Landry that perjury at trial could prompt referral/sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and procedure)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (evidence must permit reasonable jury to find for nonmovant)
- Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (conclusory allegations/scintilla insufficient to create genuine issue)
- Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190 (summary judgment movant may point out absence of evidence)
- Lee v. Offshore Logistical & Transp., LLC, 859 F.3d 353 (flexibility in admissible forms of summary judgment evidence)
- Day v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 768 F.3d 435 (unopposed summary judgment may be granted if undisputed facts warrant it)
- Hibernia Nat’l Bank v. Administracion Cent. Sociedad Anonima, 776 F.2d 1277 (procedural context for unopposed motions)
- Brown v. Oil States Skagit Smatco, 664 F.3d 71 (dismissal with prejudice as sanction for fraud on the court/perjury)
- Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406 (dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction)
- Gonzalez v. Trinity Marine Group, Inc., 117 F.3d 894 (courts should use least onerous sanction to address misconduct)