Martinez v. Navy League of the United States

Ninth Circuit

Martinez v. Navy League of the United States

688 F. App'x 465

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 20, 2017

Docket14-56682

StatusUnpublished

This text of 688 F. App'x 465 (Martinez v. Navy League of the United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martinez v. Navy League of the United States, 688 F. App'x 465 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Dolores Martinez appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her diversity action seeking damages for negligence related to a trip and fall accident. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Martinez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant owed her a duty of care. See Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 26 Cal.4th 1200, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 36 P.3d 11, 14 (2001) (elements of a premises liability negligence claim under California law); Sprecher v. Adamson Cos., 30 Cal.3d 358, 178 Cal.Rptr. 783, 636 P.2d 1121, 1126 (1981) (“[T]he duty to take affirmative action for the protection of individuals coming upon the land is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martinez’s motion for reconsideration because Martinez failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Martinez’s contention that the district court was biased against her.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Dolores Martinez appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her diversity action seeking damages for negligence related to a trip and fall accident. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Martinez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant owed her a duty of care. See Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 26 Cal.4th 1200, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 36 P.3d 11, 14 (2001) (elements of a premises liability negligence claim under California law); Sprecher v. Adamson Cos., 30 Cal.3d 358, 178 Cal.Rptr. 783, 636 P.2d 1121, 1126 (1981) (“[T]he duty to take affirmative action for the protection of individuals coming upon the land is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martinez’s motion for reconsideration because Martinez failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Martinez’s contention that the district court was biased against her.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Sprecher v. Adamson Companies

636 P.2d 783 (California Supreme Court, 1981)

John Colwell v. Robert Bannister

763 F.3d 1060 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)

Ortega v. Kmart Corp.

36 P.3d 11 (California Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

688 F. App'x 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-navy-league-of-the-united-states-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack