Ahmad v. Cypress Insurance Company, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MOHAMMAD I. AHMAD 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-2215
CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. 	SECTION: “P” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Willie
Evans, 365 Enterprises, L.L.C., EPM Enterprise, L.L.C., KAMMX, L.L.C., and Cypress Insurance
Company (R. Doc. 25) and the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants 365
Enterprises, L.L.C. and EPM Enterprise, L.L.C. (R. Doc. 24). For the reasons that follow, both
motions are GRANTED.
Plaintiff Mohammad Ahmad instituted this action against Defendants Willie Evans, 365
Enterprises, L.L.C., EPM Enterprise, L.L.C., KAMMX, L.L.C., and Cypress Insurance Company,
seeking damages for personal injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained as a result of an automobile
accident between Plaintiff and Defendant Evans.1 Plaintiff alleges Defendant Evans was acting in
the course and scope of his employment with 365 Enterprises, EPM Enterprise, and KAMMX
when Evans negligently caused the accident.2 Plaintiff seeks to hold Evans liable for his own
negligence and to hold Evans’s alleged employers vicariously liable for his negligence under
Louisiana Civil Code article 2320.3 Plaintiff further alleges on the date of the accident there was
a policy of insurance, issued by Defendant Cypress Insurance Company to Evans and his alleged
employers, that provides coverage for the type of accident at issue.4
1 R. Doc. 1-1 at pp. 3–4.
2 Id. at pp. 4–5.
3 Id.
4 Id. at p. 5.
Case 2:24-cv-02215-DJP-EJD Document 36 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Defendants 365 Enterprises and EPM Enterprise move for summary judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, arguing that it is undisputed that Defendant Evans was not an
employee of either 365 Enterprises or EPM Enterprise and that Plaintiff therefore cannot prove an
essential element of his vicarious liability claim against 365 Enterprises or EPM Enterprise.5
Plaintiff concedes he has no evidence to refute that Defendant Evans was not an employee of either
365 Enterprises or EPM Enterprise on the date of the accident.6 Without an employer-employee
relationship, Plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims against these defendants fail.7 Thus, because
Defendants 365 Enterprises and EPM Enterprise have shown there is no genuine dispute over an
essential element of Plaintiff’s claims against them, and because Plaintiff concedes he has no
evidence to refute the lack of employer-employee relationship with this defendants, the Court
concludes 365 Enterprises and EPM Enterprise are entitled to summary judgment in their favor,
dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against them with prejudice.8
Turning to the second motion, the remaining defendants move for partial summary
judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for future lost wages and diminished earning capacity, arguing that
Plaintiff has not produced any evidence to support a viable claim for future loss of earnings.9 In
response, Plaintiff concedes he is not pursuing any claim for future lost wages or diminished
earning capacity.10 Because Defendants have shown there is no genuine dispute regarding the
5 R. Doc. 24.
6 R. Doc. 27 at 2.
7 Three elements must be shown to hold an alleged employer vicariously liable pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat
superior: (1) “an employer/employee relationship,” (2) “a negligent or tortious act on the part of an employee,” and
(3) “the act complained of must be committed in the course and scope of employment.” See Jones v. Maryland Cas.
Co., 2018-0552, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/11/22), 339 So. 3d 1243, 1249.
8 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”); Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (“Rule 56 mandates the entry of summary judgment . . . against a party who fails
to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that
party will bear the burden of proof at trial.”).
9 R. Doc. 25.
10 R. Doc. 26. Plaintiff maintains his claim for past loss wages following his left shoulder surgery as outlined in his
response to Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. Id. at 2.
Case 2:24-cv-02215-DJP-EJD Document 36 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 3

3
absence of future lost wages in this case, and because Plaintiff does not point to any evidence to
support his future lost wage claim, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor as
to Plaintiff’s claim for future lost wages, including any claim of diminished earning capacity.11
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants 365
Enterprises, L.L.C. and EPM Enterprise, L.L.C. (R. Doc. 24) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims
against 	365 	Enterprises, 	L.L.C. 	and 	EPM 	Enterprise, 	L.L.C. 	are 	DISMISSED 	WITH
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by
Defendants Willie Evans, 365 Enterprises, L.L.C., EPM Enterprise, L.L.C., KAMMX, L.L.C., and
Cypress Insurance Company (R. Doc. 25) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claim for future lost
wages, 	including 	any 	claim 	of 	diminished 	earning 	capacity, 	is 	DISMISSED 	WITH
PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of December 2025.
______________________________________
DARREL JAMES PAPILLION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11 See supra note 8.
Case 2:24-cv-02215-DJP-EJD Document 36 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 3