Jones v. Sam’s Club

Sheila JONES v. SAM’S CLUB aka Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

No. HHDCV176077340S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford, Hartford

December 4, 2018

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

OPINION

Cesar A. Noble, J., Judge, Superior Court

Before the court in this premises liability fall down case is the motion of the plaintiff, Sheila Jones, to reconsider its grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Familiarity with the court’s decision is presumed. See Shelia Jones v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford docket no. HHD CV17-6077340S, 2018 WL 6304904 (November 9 2018, Noble, J.). In brief, the decision granting summary judgment was based in large part on the affidavit of Tyler Latimer, who is associated with Wal-Mart Realty Operations. In his affidavit Mr. Latimer averred that Wal-Mart, Inc. did not own, lease, possess, control or otherwise maintain the premises upon which the plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she fell, and presented evidence as to the real owner. The plaintiff’s objection contained only her own affidavit which averred that she had shopped at Sam’s Club in the past and believed that they controlled the premises upon which she fell.

The plaintiff’s motion to reargue/reconsider attaches a number of exhibits, all unauthenticated, not previously submitted in its opposition to the motion for summary judgment. These include what purports to be tax records for the property on which the plaintiff fell, a Wikipedia page containing information regarding Wal-Mart subsidiaries and C.O. N.C O.R.D. filings for Sam’s East, Inc., IREIT Newington Fair LLC and Wal-Mart, Inc. The plaintiff argues in her request for reconsideration that the defendant Wal-Mart "was in complete control and possession of the premises and its surrounding areas through the subsidiaries that it controls and oversees including, but not limited to Sam’s Club Warehouse, Sam’s East, Inc., and IREIT Newington Fair, LLC." This argument had not previously been brought to the court’s attention.

"It is well settled that a motion for reconsideration is intended to demonstrate to the court that there is some decision or some principle of law which would have a controlling effect and which has been overlooked, or that there has been a misapprehension of facts. It may also be used to address claims of law that the movant claimed were not addressed by the court. A motion to reargue however is not to be used as an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple." (Citations omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Elianah T.-T., 327 Conn. 912, 3-4, 171 A.3d 447 (2017); Meridian Partners, LLC v. Dragone Classic Motorcars, Inc., 171 Conn.App. 355, 363-64, 157 A.3d 87, 93 (2017). Accordingly, it may not...