Case Name: Lourdes Maria MORTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-04
Citations: 620 F. App'x 583
Docket Number: No. 13-16822
Parties: Lourdes Maria MORTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 620
Pages: 583–584

Head Matter:
Lourdes Maria MORTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-16822.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
Filed Sept. 4, 2015.
Lourdes Maria Morton, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
Anthony Julian Sharp, Phillips Spallas & Angstadt LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lourdes Maria Morton appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in her diversity action arising from Morton slipping and falling on a clear gel-like substance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo summary judgment and dismissal for failure to state claim, Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc., 731 F.3d 901, 905-06 (9th Cir.2013), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Morton failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Wal-Mart Stores had either actual or constructive notice of the temporary hazard. See FGA, Inc. v. Giglio, 278 P.3d 490, 496 (Nev.2012) (notice necessary for establishing liability of a business owner for a slip and fall caused by a foreign substance); see also Perez v. Las Vegas Med. Ctr., 107 Nev. 1, 805 P.2d 589, 590-91 (1991) (elements of negligence claim).
The district court properly dismissed the claims against Claims Management, Inc. and Arkansas Claims Management, Inc. because Morton failed to allege facts sufficient to show that these two parties owed a duty to maintain the premises. See Joynt v. Cal. Hotel & Casino, 108 Nev. 539, 835 P.2d 799, 801 (1992) (per curiam) (duty is part of negligence cause of action).
Morton's contentions regarding the district court's procedural and discovery rulings are unpersuasive.
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) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.