Targets Motion For Summary
Summary
The document outlines Target Corporations legal arguments for summary judgment, asserting that Plaintiffs claims are barred by probable cause and Shopkeepers Privilege under HRS § 663-2. The claims for false imprisonment, unlawful arrest, assault, and battery are argued to be invalid due to these defenses. Additionally, the Plaintiffs claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is said to fail as Targets conduct was not deemed outrageous. Any potential negligence claim is also argued to fail as it relies on the same facts as the false imprisonment claim. The shoplifting case against the Plaintiff has been dismissed and expunged.Full Conversation
Can you draft me a sample
Sure, here’s a streamlined sample based on the information you provided:
---
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
I. Introduction
Defendant TARGET CORPORATION ("Target"), by and through its attorneys, Yoshimoto Law Group, A Limited Liability Law Company, hereby files this Motion for Summary Judgment No. * regarding Plaintiff's Claims ("Motion"). A pre-filing conference under LR *.* is not required due to the inclusion of a pro se party in the current suit.
II. Factual and Procedural Background
On June *, *, at the Target store located at * Lawehana Street, Honolulu, Hawaii * ("Salt Lake Target"), Plaintiff MA ARLENE ORSINE BATO ("Plaintiff") was stopped for shoplifting by Target Security ("Subject Incident"). Plaintiff alleges unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, claiming she was not shoplifting and has never shoplifted from Target before. However, video evidence and her own testimony contradict these claims, showing clear evidence of shoplifting.
III. Standard for Granting Motion
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to anymaterial fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
IV. Argument
A.
False Imprisonment and Unlawful Arrest:
- Target was authorized to detain Plaintiff under HRS § *-*, which allows any person to arrest another without a warrant if a crime is being committed in their presence.
- Probable cause and Shopkeeper's Privilege under HRS § *-* further bar these claims.
B.
Assault and Battery:
- These claims are also barred by the Shopkeeper's Privilege.
C.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED):
- Target's conduct was not "outrageous" as required for an IIED claim to succeed.
D.
Negligence:
- Any negligence claim relies entirely on the same facts as the false imprisonment claim and thus fails as a matter of law.
V. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, all of Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law, and summary judgment should be granted in favor of Target as to all her claims.
---
Is there anything else specific you need assistance with? Can encounter this for me……MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION I. INTRODUCTION. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND III. STANDARD FOR GRANTING MOTION IV. ARGUMENT.......... F. Plaintiff's Negligence Claim Fails as a Matter of Law Machi * * Plaintiff's Claims for False Imprisonment, Unlawful Arrest, Assault, and Battery Are Also Barred by the Shopkeeper's Privilege Statute, HRS § *-* Plaintiff's IIED Claim Fails as a Matter of Law as
Target's Conduct was Not Outrageous. Plaintiff's Negligence Claim Fails as a Matter of Law
As it Relies on the Same Facts As Her False
Imprisonment Claim. V. CONCLUSION.. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION I. INTRODUCTION Defendant TARGET CORPORATION ("Target", by and through its attorneys, Yoshimoto Law Group, A Limited Liability Law Company, hereby files this Motion for Summary Judgment No. * Re: Plaintiff's Claims ("Motion"). A pre-filing conference under LR *.* is not required due to the inclusion of a pro se party in the current suit. As set forth below, all of Plaintiff MA ARLENE ORSINE BATO'S ("Plaintiff") claims fail or are barred as a matter of law. On June *, *, at the Target store located at * Lawehana Street, Honolulu, Hawaii * ("Salt Lake Target"), Plaintiff was stopped for shoplifting by Target Security ("Subject Incident"). Separate and Concise Statement of Facts in Support of MSJ * ("Facts") Incident"). Separate and Concise Statement of Facts in Support of MSJ * (Facts") *. Plaintiff has alleged that Target caused her unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. ECF * at *. She alleges that she was not shoplifting on that date and has never shoplifted from Target before. Exhibit "*", p. *. However, she has produced no evidence to support her claims, other than bare assertions contradicted by clear video evidence and her own testimony. Put simply, contrary to Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff was clearly shoplifting, and Target's employees acted within their rights to stop her. Plaintiff's claims for false imprisonment and unlawful arrest fail as a matter of law because Target was authorized to detain her under Hawai i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § *-* (*anyone in the act of committing a crime, may be arrested by any person present, without a warrant."). Plaintiff's claims for false imprisonment and unlawful arrest are further barred by probable cause and Shopkeeper's Privilege, HRS § *-*. Plaintiff's claims for Assault and Battery are similarly barred by the Shopkeeper's Privilege. PlaintifF's IIED claim fails as a matter of law as Target did not engage in any "outrageous" conduct. Plaintiff does not specifically allege negligence but mentions it in her Complaint. ECF * at *. As she does not allege any other conduct as negligent, any potential negligence claim relies entirely on the same facts as her false imprisonment claim, and thus fails as a matter of law. Based on the foregoing and for the reasons set forth more fully below, all Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law, and summary judgment should be granted in favor of Target as to all her claims. Also all the shoplifting case has been dismissed & expunged
It appears that the document outlines Target Corporation's legal arguments for why they believe the court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment. They argue that:
- Target was authorized to detain the Plaintiff under HRS § *-*.
- Claims for false imprisonment, unlawful arrest, assault, and battery are barred by probable cause and the Shopkeeper's Privilege under HRS § *-*.
- Plaintiff's IIED claim fails because Target's conduct was not "outrageous."
- Any negligence claim would fail as it relies on the same facts as the false imprisonment claim.
Is there a specific section or point within the memorandum that you need more help with, or are you seeking assistance with another legal matter related to this case?
TRY ME!
Start a new chat