Rhonda Lamb v. Ashford Place Apartments LLC, 914 F.3d 940

Tenant Rhonda Lamb reported burning odors from her apartment heating unit; maintenance inspected and initially concluded it was dust burning off coils.
Ashford Place maintenance (Robinson) installed a replacement motor after a Delancey inspection recommended it; Lamb later alleges she was overcome by smoke fumes and treated by EMTs.
Maintenance replaced the motor a second time two days later, cleaned ducts, and no further issues occurred; Lamb stayed in hotels during the incidents.
Lamb sued in state court claiming hyperactive airway disease from inhaling fumes; defendants removed to federal court based on diversity and moved for summary judgment.
The district court found the lease made Lamb responsible for the premises and applied La. Rev. Stat. § 9:3221, granting summary judgment for defendants and denying Lamb’s Rule 59(e) motion; Lamb appealed.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Lamb failed to raise genuine disputes on the § 9:3221 elements (owner knew/should have known of defect or received notice and failed to remedy).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicable law governing landlord liability	Lamb: negligence claims under Civil Code Arts. 2004/2699 apply; § 9:3221 wasn't exclusive	Defs: Lease shifts responsibility to tenant, so § 9:3221 controls and encompasses negligence	Court: § 9:3221 applies and governs negligence claims when tenant assumes responsibility
Scope of summary judgment motion	Lamb: MSJ addressed only strict liability; dismissal of negligence claims was error	Defs: § 9:3221 subsumes negligence; MSJ properly addressed those elements	Court: No error — district court correctly adjudicated all claims under § 9:3221
Burden of proof on summary judgment	Lamb: Court improperly placed burden on her to disprove defendants’ affirmative defense	Defs: As movants, they properly showed absence of genuine fact disputes and shifted burden	Court: Defendants met MSJ burden; Lamb failed to point to record evidence to create dispute
Existence of genuine factual disputes	Lamb: Installation by Ashford Place created triable issues (wrong/incorrectly installed motor)	Defs: Evidence shows no pre‑injury notice, motor worked after first replacement, notice occurred after injury	Court: Lamb’s assertions were conclusory; no admissible evidence raised genuine disputes on any § 9:3221 element

Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326 (5th Cir.) (summary judgment review standard in the Fifth Circuit)
Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for Rule 59(e) motions)
Pioneer Nat. Res. USA, Inc. v. Paper, Allied Indus., Chem. & Energy Workers Int’l Union Local 4-487, 328 F.3d 818 (5th Cir.) (de novo review when reconsidering questions of law)
In re 1994 Exxon Chem. Fire, 558 F.3d 378 (5th Cir.) (procedural removal defects do not necessarily void federal judgments on the merits)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court) (movant may meet summary judgment burden by showing absence of evidence for nonmovant)
Stahl v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 283 F.3d 254 (5th Cir.) (procedures for pointing out lack of record support on summary judgment)
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir.) (conclusory allegations or scintilla of evidence cannot defeat summary judgment)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Veninata, 971 So.2d 420 (La. Ct. App.) (§ 9:3221 provides for negligence claims)
Stuckey v. Riverstone Residential SC, LP, 21 So.3d 970 (La. Ct. App.) (Article 2699 and Article 2004 do not supersede § 9:3221 where lessee assumes responsibility)
Wells v. Norris, 71 So.3d 1165 (La. Ct. App.) (same principle endorsing § 9:3221 as exception to Article 2699)