Case ID: f-appx_508/html/0679-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Monica WILLIAMS-HARVEST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., dba Wal-Mart Supercenter Store No. 2592, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-17324.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 14, 2013.
    Monica Williams-Harvest, N. Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    Brenda H. Entzminger, Jennifer Lynn Lewkowski, Phillips Spallas & Angstadt LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
    Before FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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., 109 Nev. 247, 849 P.2d 320, 822-23 (1998) (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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.