Lourdes Maria Morton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOURDES MARIA MORTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-16822
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00155-MMD-
NJK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Lourdes Maria Morton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in
her diversity action arising from Morton slipping and falling on a clear gel-like
substance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
summary judgment and dismissal for failure to state claim, Castle v. Eurofresh,
FILED
SEP 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Inc., 731 F.3d 901, 905-06 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Morton
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Wal-Mart Stores had
either actual or constructive notice of the temporary hazard. See FGA, Inc. v.
Giglio, 278 P.3d 490, 496 (Nev. 2012) (notice necessary for establishing liability
of a business owner for a slip and fall caused by a foreign substance); see also
Perez v. Las Vegas Med. Ctr., 805 P.2d 589, 590-91 (Nev. 1991) (elements of
negligence claim).
The district court properly dismissed the claims against Claims
Management, Inc. and Arkansas Claims Management, Inc. because Morton failed
to allege facts sufficient to show that these two parties owed a duty to maintain the
premises. See Joynt v. Cal. Hotel & Casino, 835 P.2d 799, 801 (Nev. 1992) (per
curiam) (duty is part of negligence cause of action).
Morton’s contentions regarding the district court’s procedural and discovery
rulings are unpersuasive.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
13-16822 2

-- 2 of 2 --