Pasiecznik v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
2:20-cv-02202
D. Nev.Mar 31, 2025Background
- Plaintiff William J. Pasiecznik sued Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. after a physical altercation with asset protection associate Phil Dinh in a Las Vegas parking lot on July 15, 2018.
- Pasiecznik alleged he was assaulted and battered, sustaining significant injuries including fractures and internal injuries, as a result of alleged negligence and negligent hiring by Home Depot.
- Home Depot removed the case from state court to federal court and sought summary judgment multiple times, eventually refiling after discovery closed.
- Summary judgment standard requires no genuine dispute of material fact and is reviewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
- Objective evidence (photographs, paramedic reports, jail medical records) did not support Plaintiff's claims of injury; a recorded conversation suggested fabrication of injuries.
- Plaintiff also raised a spoliation claim, alleging relevant CCTV footage was not preserved, which Defendant contested due to the timing of notice and lack of evidence of camera coverage in the incident area.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence & Injuries | Plaintiff suffered multiple, serious injuries due to Home Depot’s negligence and hiring practices | Injuries were fabricated and unsupported by objective evidence | Court found no genuine dispute of material fact; summary judgment for Defendant |
| Causation | Injuries proximately caused by Dinh’s actions | No causation proven, no medical/expert support | Plaintiff failed to prove causation |
| Spoliation of Evidence | Defendant failed to preserve CCTV footage | No cameras covered incident area; no notice or duty to preserve | No spoliation; no duty prior to notice of litigation |
| Credibility of Evidence | Testimony and allegations about injuries | Photographic and documented evidence contradicts Plaintiff | Court credited objective evidence over Plaintiff’s account |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (objective evidence can overrule disputed testimony at summary judgment)
- Zetwick v. County of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436 (improper for courts to resolve genuine factual disputes at summary judgment)
- Krause, Inc. v. Little, 34 P.3d 566 (medical expert needed for causation in subjective injury claims)
- Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789 (facts viewed in light most favorable to non-moving party)