United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 29) and Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF No. 26).
Court finds the following facts to be undisputed.
March 22, 2015, Plaintiff, Amber Morgan, fell while walking
in an aisleway inside of Defendant Wal-Mart's store
number 2837 located in Las Vegas, Nevada. Immediately after
the fall, Plaintiff reported a spill to Wal-Mart employees.
She identified the location where she fell and told the
employees that she had been walking fine before the fall. An
incident report was generated by Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart preserved
video from 30 minutes before and 30 minutes after the fall.
Plaintiff suffered injuries to her back and knee.
Court finds the following facts to be disputed by the
parties. First, the parties dispute whether Plaintiff fell
because of a shampoo-like liquid or substance that had been
on the floor for at least 30 minutes in a high traffic
aisleway. Plaintiff asserts that she saw the liquid and
“blue streak” on the floor where she fell.
Defendant avers that Plaintiff has made contradictory
statements about what happened prior to her fall as well as
what she saw and did. Second, the parties dispute the
location of any alleged spill in relation to where Plaintiff
fell. Defendant argues that there is no video evidence to
establish the existence the spill or its location. Plaintiff
claims she saw the spill and its location after her fall.
Third, the parties dispute, if there was a spill, whether
Defendant should have been on notice of the spill and whether
Defendant had sufficient maintenance procedures to address
possible hazards in the store. Fourth, the parties dispute
whether or not Wal-Mart intentionally erased or failed to
preserve video from more than hour before and after the spill
as allegedly required by its internal policies.
removed this case to federal court on August 28, 2017. ECF
No. 1. filed her initial complaint in state court on
September 9, 2016. ECF No. 1. Defendant filed a Motion to
Consolidate on March 29, 2018. ECF No. Defendant filed the
instant Motion for Summary Judgment on July 16, 2019. ECF No.
judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, show “that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a);
accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
(1986). When considering the propriety of summary judgment,
the court views all facts and draws all inferences in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Gonzalez v.
City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2014). If
the movant has carried its burden, the non-moving party
“must do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. . . . Where the
record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of
fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine
issue for trial.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.
372, 380 (2007) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted) (alteration in original).