Hosseni Tabarestani v. Walmart, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 20-13621
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
HOSSENI TABARESTANI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WALMART, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cv-62963-LSS
____________________
USCA11 Case: 20-13621 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 20-13621
Before J ORDAN , NEWSOM, and B LACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Hossein Tabarestani brought a negligence action against
Walmart, Inc. based on injuries Tabarestani sustained from a slip
and fall on the premises of a Sam’s Club located in Bluffton, South
Carolina. After a three-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict
in favor of Walmart. Subsequently, Tabarestani filed post-trial
motions for a new trial and relief from judgment. The magistrate
judge1 denied both motions in a thorough Omnibus Order on
Post-Trial Motions.2
Tabarestani asserts the district court erred in five ways:
(1) in ruling there was no fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct
by Walmart; (2) by not admitting Walmart’s internal policies and
procedures and Walmart’s answers to Tabarestani’s interrogato-
ries; (3) in not compelling Walmart Manager Christopher Graft’s
attendance at trial at Walmart’s expense; (4) in excluding OSHA
regulations as evidence of negligence; and (5) in substantially
adopting Walmart’s proposed jury instructions and in substantial-
ly adopting Walmart’s submitted verdict form.
1 On January 3, 2019, the parties consented to conduct all further proceed-
ings in front of a United States Magistrate Judge.
2 The Omnibus Order also denied Tabarestani’s motion to conduct inter-
views with jurors and granted Walmart’s motion to tax costs. These rulings
are not at issue on appeal.
USCA11 Case: 20-13621 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

20-13621 Opinion of the Court 3
After review, we conclude Tabarestani’s arguments are
meritless and affirm for the reasons stated in the magistrate
judge’s thorough and well-reasoned Omnibus Order of August
29, 2020. We note as to his fraud claim, Tabarestani contends
that a Walmart security video that
he introduced into evidence at
trial was fraudulent and does not show him, but rather some oth-
er unidentified person, falling in the snow at the Sam’s Club load-
ing dock on January 7, 2018. As the magistrate judge reasoned,
the jury was charged with finding the facts based on their assess-
ment of the evidence, including the credibility of witnesses.
Tabarestani claimed at trial that he was not shown in the video,
but the jury rejected that argument. As the district court stated,
Tabarestani has shown “no clear and convincing evidence of
fraud or fraud on the court.”
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 20-13621 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --