4 min read
Estrada v. Coral Springs: Court Rejects USERRA Retaliation Claims
Fall at Lustre Pearl Denver
Holly Grant filed suit against Lustre Pearl Denver, LLC, doing business as Lustre Pearl Denver, and Rino (Edens), LLC after a fall at Lustre Pearl. The case arose from events that occurred on September 16, 2022, when Grant entered the bar and later fell inside the premises. Grant stated that she slipped on liquid and broke her wrist.
Grant brought claims against Lustre Pearl and Rino (Edens) under Colorado’s Premises Liability Act. She also brought common law negligence claims. Her allegations focused on a wet floor inside the bar and the lighting conditions within the premises. Grant alleged that the parties responsible for the property failed to protect against the danger of a wet floor that was known or should have been known and failed to provide adequate lighting.
The case materials described Lustre Pearl as the tenant of the property and Rino (Edens) as the lessor. Lustre Pearl admitted that it was a landowner under Colorado’s Premises Liability Act and that Grant was an invitee at the time of the fall. Rino (Edens) took the position that it did not control the interior conditions involved in the suit and did not qualify as a landowner for purposes of the statute.
Evidence Described in the Motion
Grant testified that she fell inside Lustre Pearl rather than on the patio. She did not remember the precise location inside the bar where the fall occurred, but she testified that she fell once on the wood floor inside the bar. The motion included two photographs showing possible areas where she may have fallen. Both locations were inside the bar.
Grant also testified that the bar was dimly lit with Christmas light type lighting. When asked what caused her to fall, she identified a wet floor. The motion stated that she did not identify lighting as the cause of the fall or as a condition that contributed to the fall.
Lustre Pearl presented testimony about its staffing and cleaning practices. The motion stated that, on a weekend shift, Lustre Pearl typically had two to three barbacks working. On September 16, 2022, three barbacks were assigned to work. The case materials described the barback position as one that required constant movement through the bar. The job duties included keeping the floors clean and cleaning up spills as soon as possible.
The motion stated that rounds through the bar were expected every four to five minutes. It also referenced testimony that the general manager, Preston Parker, walked through the bar, identified spills, and cleaned them up. The employee handbook included guidance requiring spills to be wiped up immediately and stated that employees should walk the floor at least every thirty minutes.
After Grant reported the fall, Jessica Trulove walked through the bar to look for a spill. According to the motion, Trulove could not locate a spill after Grant reported the fall. The motion also stated that Parker checked the floor after learning of the fall and did not see liquid on the floor. Parker did not remember finding or cleaning up a spill that night and recalled the staff keeping the area tidy.
Lease Terms and Control of the Property
The motion also described the lease relationship involving the property. Lustre Pearl signed a lease for the premises with 2601 Larimer Street, LLC in January 2017. Rino (Edens) later assumed the lease as lessor on May 1, 2018.
The lease required Lustre Pearl to provide, install, and maintain the premises. It also required Lustre Pearl to keep the premises, and every part of the premises, in good order, condition, and repair. The lease reserved certain rights for the landlord involving the roof, exterior walls, and areas above and below the premises, including structural elements, so long as that work did not materially or adversely affect Lustre Pearl’s business operations.
The motion also described a temporary license signed in June 2020 allowing Lustre Pearl to use an outdoor seating area for customers. Under that temporary license, Lustre Pearl assumed responsibility and liability for the security of itself, its employees, agents, contractors, customers, invitees, and others connected to the outdoor seating area. Grant’s testimony placed her fall inside the bar rather than in the outdoor seating area.
Based on those lease provisions and Grant’s testimony about the location of the fall, Rino (Edens) requested dismissal from the case. The motion stated that Rino (Edens) did not control the area where the fall occurred and was not legally responsible for the interior condition at issue.
Summary Judgment Request
Lustre Pearl and Rino (Edens) moved for summary judgment. They sought dismissal of the claims on several grounds. Rino (Edens) requested dismissal based on the position that it was not a landowner under the Colorado Premises Liability Act for the condition involved in Grant’s fall.
Lustre Pearl requested summary judgment on the grounds that Grant could not show actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition. The motion stated that there was no evidence showing who caused liquid to be on the floor, what the liquid was, or how long any liquid was present. Lustre Pearl also maintained that its employees regularly checked the bar, cleaned spills immediately, and responded after the fall was reported.
Lustre Pearl also addressed Grant’s lighting allegations. The motion stated that Grant testified the bar was dimly lit but identified the wet floor as the cause of her fall. It also cited testimony that the lighting was not so dim that customers could not see where they were going. Lustre Pearl stated that no evidence showed the lighting fell below any standard of care, that prior falls had occurred due to lighting, or that anyone had reported lighting concerns before Grant’s fall.
The motion also sought dismissal of Grant’s negligence claims. Lustre Pearl and Rino (Edens) stated that Colorado’s Premises Liability Act provided the exclusive remedy for injuries occurring on another’s property when the statute applied.
Court’s Decision
The court reviewed the motion for summary judgment under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The court stated that summary judgment was proper only when no genuine issue of material fact existed and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court also stated that the nonmoving party received the benefit of reasonable favorable inferences and that doubts had to be resolved against the moving party.
The court denied the motion for summary judgment. It found that issues of material fact remained regarding the claims Grant brought in her complaint. Because those factual issues remained, the court found that summary judgment was not proper at that stage of the case.
The court also denied Grant’s request for fees and costs. It declined to find that the motion for summary judgment was substantially frivolous.
USERRA Legal Support
If you are dealing with employment or reemployment issues tied to uniformed service, our team handles USERRA matters involving discrimination based on military service, retaliation for seeking USERRA rights, military leave, reemployment, seniority, and benefits. You can contact us to discuss your situation and learn how our team can assist.
