Case Name: James E. HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REGAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-11
Citations: 705 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 16-17122
Parties: James E. HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REGAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and ELLIS, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 705
Pages: 664–665

Head Matter:
James E. HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REGAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-17122
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 7, 2017 San Francisco, California
Filed December 11, 2017
Boyd Jensen, Garrett & Jensen, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Nicholas Schieffelin, Ernest Weiss, Kli-nedinst PC, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellee’
Before: SCHROEDER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and ELLIS, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Sara Lee Ellis, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
"Where [a] dangerous condition is brought about by . third persons . or by other causes which are not due to the negligence of the owner, or his employees, then to impose liability the owner must have either actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition[.]" Hatfield v. Levy Bros., 18 Cal.2d 798, 117 P.2d 841, 845 (1941).
Hall alleges that Regal had constructive knowledge of the spill because: (1) Regal's ushers aren't provided "carpet cleaner, cleaning solutions, or scrapers" to clean spills; (2) no one addressed the spill for at least 30 minutes after Hall reported it; and (3) Hall's expert inspected the theater three years later and observed "[s]lippery and sticky spots" on the carpet. These allegations may indicate that Regal didn't properly clean up spills after Hall slipped, but they have no bearing on Regal's constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition beforehand. "In the absence of actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, the own-' er is not liable." Moore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 111 Cal.App.4th 472, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 813, 816 (2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.