Judgment denied to former hotel employees

Where two persons moved for summary judgment on their claims that they were unjustly and inappropriately terminated from their positions at a Martinsville hotel, but they relied only on unsupported, conclusory statements, their motion was denied.

Background

This dispute dates back to a business relationship that soured, ending in Patrick & Shirley Lattimore’s termination from their positions at The Raceway Inn Motel in Martinsville, Virginia. Plaintiffs contend they were fired unjustly and otherwise discriminated against.

They also allege that the new owner of the hotel filed false charges against Patrick Lattimore, and that BB&T and the new owner conspired to withhold pay and unlawfully withdraw money from plaintiffs’ bank accounts. The case is presently before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Analysis

Summary judgment is reserved for instances where there is no dispute over material facts, and where the moving party establishes — with otherwise admissible evidence — that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Here, plaintiffs attempt to short-circuit the requirement that they prove their case with evidence, relying instead on unsupported, conclusory statements of their entitlement to relief. While the court recognizes that plaintiffs are proceeding pro se and are likely unfamiliar with the applicable rules, the court simply cannot grant judgment against parties in the absence of any proof of their wrongdoing.

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied.

Lattimore v. Brahmbhatt, Case No. 4:21-cv-00038, Jan. 10, 2023. WDVA at Danville (Cullen). VLW 023-3-012. 5 pp.