Poole v. Walmart Inc.
1:25-cv-00603
| N.D. Ill. | Sep 5, 2025Background
- On Aug. 30, 2024, James Poole was shopping at a Walmart in Lansing, IL; after complaining about shopping carts he was approached by store manager Lamont Isaac and an off‑duty Walmart security officer.
- Isaac allegedly detained and escorted Poole to the store front, called 911, and told Lansing police Poole assaulted employees and impersonated an officer.
- Lansing police arrested Poole, transported him to the station, fingerprinted and held him ~7 hours; prosecutors declined to file charges and Poole was released.
- Poole filed an amended complaint asserting state‑law claims for malicious prosecution, battery, false arrest, and spoliation, and referenced § 1983/Monell and respondeat superior theories.
- Walmart moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court dismissed with prejudice Poole’s malicious prosecution, battery, and § 1983/respondeat superior claims, but allowed false arrest and spoliation claims to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution (IL) | Isaac’s false statements led to criminal proceedings; Poole prevailed when charges were declined | No criminal proceeding was ever commenced; mere provision of false info to police does not commence prosecution | Dismissed with prejudice — no prosecution commenced, claim fails as matter of law |
| Battery (IL) | Walmart employees intentionally offended/assaulted Poole | Complaint does not allege any physical contact by Walmart employees | Dismissed with prejudice — battery requires offensive physical contact |
| False arrest (IL) | Isaac detained Poole and told police false statements, causing arrest; Walmart caused/procured arrest | Walmart argues mere reporting to police is insufficient; must have procured/affirmatively instigated arrest | Survives dismissal — pleadings plausibly allege Isaac personally participated/caused arrest; claim may proceed under state law |
| § 1983 / Monell and respondeat superior | Poole pleads Walmart liable under § 1983 via respondeat superior/Monell | No respondeat superior liability under § 1983; no facts alleging municipal policy/custom or constitutional deprivation | Dismissed with prejudice — no Monell predicate alleged and no constitutional claim pleaded |
| Spoliation of evidence (IL) | Walmart failed to preserve incident report and CCTV after notice to preserve; loss prejudiced Poole’s ability to prove innocence | (Argued inadequacy of claim at dismissal) | Survives dismissal — pleadings sufficiently allege duty, notice, breach, and prejudice plausibly caused by loss of footage |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaman v. Freesmeyer, 131 N.E.3d 488 (Ill. 2019) (elements required for Illinois malicious prosecution claim)
- Swick v. Liautaud, 662 N.E.2d 1238 (Ill. 1996) (malicious prosecution elements)
- Obermeier v. Nw. Mem’l Hosp., 134 N.E.3d 316 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019) (elements of civil battery)
- Gaddis v. DeMattei, 30 F.4th 625 (7th Cir. 2022) (Illinois false arrest standard and private‑person procurement)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom causing constitutional deprivation)
- J.K.J. v. Polk Cnty., 960 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2020) (no respondeat superior liability under § 1983)
- Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763 (7th Cir. 2008) (private entities liable under Monell only for official policy or custom)
- Randall v. Lemke, 726 N.E.2d 183 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (false information to police alone does not always commence prosecution)
- Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co., 564 N.E.2d 1222 (Ill. 1990) (false arrest principles: restraint procured by defendant)
- Odorizzi v. A.O. Smith Corp., 452 F.2d 229 (7th Cir. 1971) (private‑party procurement/instigation of arrest)
- Brobbey v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Chicago, 935 N.E.2d 1084 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (spoliation elements under Illinois law)