Monica Williams-Harvest v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 508 F. App'x 679 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MONICA WILLIAMS-HARVEST, No. 11-17324
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01956-JCM-RJJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WAL-MART STORES, INC., DBA Wal-
Mart Supercenter Store No. 2592,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Monica Williams-Harvest appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment for defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”) in her diversity action
arising from a slip and fall at a North Las Vegas supermarket. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and may affirm on any
basis supported by the record. Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Schwarzenegger,
556 F.3d 950, 956 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
Summary judgment for Wal-Mart was proper because Williams-Harvest
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Wal-Mart Store No.
2592 had actual or constructive notice of a slippery area of the floor, see Sprague
v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 849 P.2d 320, 322-23 (Nev. 1993) (per curiam), or whether
the area where she fell was so foreseeably dangerous that Wal-Mart’s regular
safety sweeps were insufficient, see FGA, Inc. v. Giglio, 278 P.3d 490, 496-97
(Nev. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
2