## Facts

- Carol Hobson shopped at a Dollar General store in Mississippi.
- Employee Akedra Atkins suspected Hobson had stolen merchandise by placing it in her purse and asked to search the purse; Hobson refused.
- Atkins directed another employee, Calvin Brooks, to watch Hobson while Atkins called police.
- About 30 minutes later, a police officer arrived and searched Hobson’s purse item-by-item in view of other shoppers, finding no stolen merchandise.
- The officer escorted Hobson from the store and informed her that, at management’s request, she was banned from returning.
- Hobson alleged she suffered embarrassment and humiliation and asserted Mississippi tort claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and false arrest/imprisonment.
- Dollar General sought summary judgment on all claims under Rule 56.

## Issues

1. Whether Dollar General was entitled to summary judgment on false arrest/imprisonment because Hobson lacked evidence of an unlawful restraint attributable to the store and/or because merchant protections applied.
2. Whether summary judgment was improper on defamation due to disputed facts about whether store personnel published false, unprivileged accusations of shoplifting to third parties.
3. Whether summary judgment was improper on IIED because a jury could find the conduct extreme and outrageous and the emotional harm severe.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was granted for Dollar General on the false arrest/imprisonment claim.
- Summary judgment was denied on the defamation claim because material factual disputes remained regarding what was communicated, to whom, and whether any privilege applied or was abused.
- Summary judgment was denied on the IIED claim because a reasonable jury could find the public accusation/search and treatment sufficiently extreme and outrageous and could credit Hobson’s evidence of emotional distress.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; a nonmovant must produce evidence sufficient to support essential elements of each claim.
- Under Mississippi law, false imprisonment requires an unlawful detention or restraint against the plaintiff’s will; a merchant’s limited authority to act on suspected shoplifting and the role of independent law enforcement may defeat attribution of an actionable restraint to the merchant on the record presented.
- Mississippi defamation requires a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff, unprivileged publication to a third party, and at least negligent fault plus damages; disputes about publication and privilege commonly preclude summary judgment.
- Mississippi IIED requires extreme and outrageous conduct and severe emotional distress; whether conduct meets this standard is often for the jury when the record supports competing inferences.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Hobson’s false arrest/imprisonment claim at summary judgment but allowed her defamation and IIED claims to proceed because disputed facts about the accusation, public search, communications, and resulting emotional harm required resolution by a jury.


Hobson v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 142 F. Supp. 3d 487 (S.D. Miss. 2015)