Miller v. Kroger

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: December 6, 2024
• Docket: 24-20182
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-20182 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 24-20182 FILED December 6, 2024 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Ryan Edward Miller, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

The Kroger Company; Kroger Texas, L.P.,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22-CV-587 ______________________________

Before Smith, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * This appeal concerns a premises liability claim originally brought in Texas state court against the Kroger Company and Kroger Texas, L.P. (col- lectively “Kroger”). Plaintiff Ryan Edward Miller alleged he slipped and fell in a Kroger store in Seabrook, Texas, resulting in head injuries that prevented him from remembering the circumstances of the fall. Kroger removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-20182 Document: 47-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2024

No. 24-20182

and, after Miller filed an amended complaint, moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 1 The district court granted the motion to dismiss on February 14, 2024, dismissing Miller’s claim with prejudice. The court reasoned that “[t]he fac- tual allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fall woefully short of es- tablishing any of the elements for his premises liability claim because he does not and cannot state what the condition was that allegedly caused his inju- ries.” Accordingly, the court ruled that Miller’s allegations failed to meet the pleading standard articulated in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). After the district court de- nied his motion for reconsideration, Miller timely appealed. We have reviewed the briefs, the record, the applicable law, and the oral arguments of counsel. Essentially for the reasons given by the district court, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

_____________________ 1 Although Kroger filed the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the district court construed it under Rule 12(c) because it was filed after Kroger answered Miller’s amended complaint. A Rule 12(c) motion is evaluated under the same standard as a 12(b)(6) motion. See, e.g., Laviage v. Fite, 47 F.4th 402, 405 (5th Cir. 2022).