Thedefendant has also submitted a supplemental memorandum insupport of its motion for summary judgment (# 52).

Ball have submitted anopposition to Wal-Mart's dispositive motion (# 48). The litigation has progressed to the point where discovery hasclosed and the defendant has filed a motion for summary judgmentincluding a concise statement of material facts (# 46), amemorandum of law in support, and an appendix of exhibits (#47). On September 3,1998, Wal-Mart filed an answer and eleven days thereafter, theaction was removed to the federal court. Ball and her husband, Thomas Ames Ball ('Mr.Ball') filedthe eight-count complaint in this case on Augin theSuperior Court for Norfolk County, Massachusetts, naming asparty defendant Wal-Mart, Inc. Ball's central allegation in this lawsuit is that one ofthese 'greeters,' a Wal-Mart employee, one James Harris('Mr.Harris'), denied her egress from a Wal-Mart store andproceeded to search her shopping cart before letting her leave.The shopping cart contained all of the items processed andpurchased through the check-out counter. Mary Claire Ball(hereinafter, 'Ms.Ball') had an encounter with one of the'greeters' on Novemwhich did not leave her smiling.In fact, it led to the filing of this lawsuit ten months later. 2 At times, Wal-Martassigns the 'greeters' to do other tasks. Wal-Mart prides itself on its policy of having 'peoplegreeters' with smiling faces who stand at the entrances to theirstores presumably to 'greet' shoppers. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 46)

Coblyn v kennedy inc