Hamilton v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 2, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01909
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3) ROCHELLE HAMILTON, Case No.: 2:21-cv-01909-APG-EJY 4 Plaintiff Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment v. [ECF Nos. 18, 19] 99 CENTS ONLY STORES LLC, 7 Defendant 8 Plaintiff Rochelle Hamilton sues defendant 99 Cents Only Stores LLC for injuries she sustained after allegedly slipping and falling in a 99 Cents Only store. In her amended complaint, she asserts claims for negligence and premises liability. ECF No. 17. 99 Cents Only moves for partial summary judgment on the premises liability claim, arguing that premises 12}| liability is not a separate cause of action and instead is a means of proving that 99 Cents Only was negligent. ECF Nos. 18, 19. Hamilton did not respond. 14 I grant 99 Cents Only’s motion because premises liability is a theory of negligence and 15}|not a separate cause of action. See FGA, Inc. v. Giglio, 278 P.3d 490, 494, 496 (Nev. 2012) (describing premises liability as an alternative theory of negligence and noting that although the plaintiff “alleged alternative factual theories of negligent conduct, she raised only one theory of 18}|recovery—negligence”). However, the amended complaint’s allegations regarding why 99 Cents Only may be liable under a premises liability theory remain part of Hamilton’s negligence claim. 20 I THEREFORE ORDER that defendant 99 Cents Only Stores LLC’s motion for partial 21])summary judgment (ECF Nos. 18, 19) is GRANTED. 22 DATED this 2nd day of December, 2022. 2 23 □□ ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE