Norma Cardoza v. Target Corporation ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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