Renetta Bell v. Walmart, Inc., et al.

Bell v. Walmart · United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana · December 8, 2025 · No. No. 24-102-JWD-SDJ

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana grants Crossmark, Inc.'s motion to dismiss claims brought by Renetta Bell in a slip-and-fall action. The court holds that Bell failed to establish interruption of prescription because the complaint did not adequately allege a joint or solidary relationship between Crossmark and the other defendants, and also failed to allege wrongdoing by Crossmark. The claims are dismissed without prejudice, with 28 days granted to amend.

Holdings

  1. Because Bell's claims against Crossmark were facially prescribed, Bell bore the burden of alleging and proving a basis for interruption, including facts establishing that Crossmark was jointly or solidarily liable with Walmart or Sam's. The conclusory allegation that Defendants were jointly and/or solidarily liable was insufficient, so Bell failed to establish interruption of prescription as to Crossmark.
  2. The First Supplemental and Amending Complaint failed to state a plausible claim against Crossmark because it merely named Crossmark as a defendant and did not allege any negligent, spoliation-related, or other wrongful conduct by Crossmark.
  3. Because this was the first ruling on the First Supplemental and Amending Complaint and the defects were not shown to be incurable, Bell was entitled to one opportunity to amend. Failure to cure the deficiencies within twenty-eight days would result in dismissal with prejudice.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Bell's claims against Crossmark were prescribed under Louisiana's one-year liberative-prescription period applicable to claims arising before July 1, 2024.
  2. Whether Bell adequately alleged facts showing that Crossmark was a joint tortfeasor or solidary obligor such that filing the original action against Walmart interrupted prescription as to Crossmark.
  3. Whether the First Supplemental and Amending Complaint stated a plausible claim against Crossmark.
  4. Whether Bell should be granted leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (30)

  • In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC, 624 F.3d 201, 210 (5th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Hamilton v. Dallas County, 79 F.4th 494, 499 (5th Cir. 2023)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663, 678-79 (2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-70 (2007)(followed)
  • Ferrer v. Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Harold H. Huggins Realty, Inc. v. FNC, Inc., 634 F.3d 787, 796 (5th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Doe ex rel. Magee v. Covington County School District ex rel. Keys, 675 F.3d 849, 854 (5th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Calhoun v. City of Houston Police Department, 855 F. App'x 917, 919-20 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 30.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…