Norma Cardoza v. Target Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 22, 2019
• Docket: 18-55877
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORMA CARDOZA, No. 18-55877

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02232-MWF- RAO v.

TARGET CORPORATION; DOES, 1 to 50, MEMORANDUM* inclusive,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 17, 2019**

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Norma Cardoza appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in her

diversity action alleging negligence and premises liability under California law.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Braunling v.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 220 F.3d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The district court properly granted summary judgment because Cardoza

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant had actual

or constructive notice of a dangerous condition in sufficient time to correct it. See

Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 13-14 (Cal. 2001) (requirements for liability

under a negligence theory; failure to inspect the premises within a reasonable

period of time may establish owner’s constructive notice).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cardoza’s request

to continue summary judgment proceedings to allow further discovery because

Cardoza did not comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

56(d). See SEC v. Stein, 906 F.3d 823, 833 (9th Cir. 2018) (providing standard of

review and setting forth requirements for a motion under Rule 56(d) to allow

discovery while a summary judgment motion is pending).

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).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-55877