Motley v. Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 8:15-cv-02062

On July 22, 2013, Cecil Motley slipped in the shower at the Key Bridge Marriott in Arlington, VA, and sued for negligence/premises liability.
Motley alleges the tub was slippery and lacked anti-slip strips or a rubber mat; the tubs were renovated after the incident (in 2015), so no physical evidence of the original surface exists.
Defendants are Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. and Host Hotels & Resorts of Virginia, LP; they submitted an affidavit that they neither owned nor managed the Key Bridge Marriott on the date of the fall and had no role in the bathtub’s condition.
Plaintiff offered an SEC filing showing Host’s consolidated portfolio status as of February 20, 2015, but no evidence of ownership/control as of July 22, 2013.
Plaintiff moved to add Marriott International and an insurer (Chartis) after the statute of limitations; he also moved to compel production of a security log.
Court applied Virginia substantive law (lex loci delicti), granted summary judgment for Host, and denied Plaintiff’s motions to amend and to compel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Host owed a duty for premises where Motley fell	Host should be liable because the hotel was part of Host’s consolidated portfolio	Host did not own, manage, or control the Key Bridge Marriott on the incident date	Host had no ownership/control as of July 22, 2013; no duty—summary judgment for Host
Whether there is evidence of actual or constructive notice of a defective tub	Testimony that tub had glazed finish and lacked non-slip strips shows defect/notice	No evidence when defect arose, and post-incident renovations make expert testing irrelevant	Plaintiff failed to show actual or constructive knowledge; summary judgment warranted
Whether Plaintiff may amend complaint to add Marriott and Chartis after deadlines and limitations	Plaintiff seeks to add defendants based on later-discovered information/policy	Amendment untimely; Plaintiff lacked diligence; amendment would be time-barred and futile	Denied for lack of good cause under Rule 16 and futility under Rule 15 (relation-back fails)
Whether Plaintiff may compel production of a security log	Plaintiff seeks security log responsive to discovery requests	Defendants searched; Plaintiff failed to meet-and-confer and comply with local rules	Motion to compel denied for failure to comply with Rule 37 and Local Rules

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and scintilla rule)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225 (4th Cir.) (inferences at summary judgment)
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (choice-of-law—forum follows its own rules)
Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Pulley, 203 Va. 535 (premises liability notice/constructive knowledge)
Grim v. Rahe, Inc., 246 Va. 239 (constructive knowledge requires defect existence for sufficient time)
Kreisler v. Goldberg, 478 F.3d 209 (4th Cir.) (parent not liable absent control)
Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458 (relation-back and mistake-of-identity framework)