United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant GGP Meadows Mall, LLC's
(“Meadows Mall”) motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 23). Plaintiff Lynn Guiwan filed a response (ECF No.
27), to which Meadows Mall replied (ECF No. 28).
action arises out of a slip and fall incident that took place
at the Meadows Mall, located at 4300 Meadows Lane, Las Vegas,
Nevada. (ECF No. 1).
afternoon of September 20, 2015, Guiwan was at the Meadows
Mall with her husband and daughter. (ECF No. 23-2). At
approximately 2:54 p.m., an unidentified woman walked through
the mall's lower level center hallway and dropped her
drink on the floor. (ECF No. 23-4). After about six minutes,
a kiosk vendor placed a bar stool next to the spill so that
pedestrians could avoid stepping on the spill. Id.
At around 3:07 p.m., Guiwan slipped on the spill and fell to
the floor. Id. Shortly thereafter, Paul Hernandez, a
mall porter arrived to the scene to and cleaned the spill.
(ECF No. 27-1).
27, 2017, Guiwan initiated this action in state court,
asserting two negligence causes of action for (1) premises
liability and (2) negligent hiring, training, and
supervision. (ECF No. 1). On September 22, 2017, Meadows Mall
removed this action to federal court. Id.
the course of discovery, Guiwan learned that Meadows Mall had
a video patrol officer who used security cameras to observe
activities in the mall and, when necessary, dispatch security
to the scene. (ECF No. 27-3). Meadows Mall also requires
kiosk vendors to contact mall security to report any spills
occurring outside of their respective kiosk tasks. (ECF No.
23-9). Meadows Mall does not equip kiosk venders with
landline phones or radios. Id.
also learned that Hernandez acquired employment as a mall
porter at Meadows Mall with no previous janitorial experience
and received only one hour of training. (ECF No. 27-1). His
tasks as a mall porter required him to complete and record 42
“sweeps”, complete 12 bathroom-cleaning trips,
and replace 18 industrial trash cans in a single eight-hour
shift. Id. Video evidence shows that Hernandez's
sweep sheets are inaccurate and that he did not timely sweep
the mall's lower level central hallway prior to
Guiwan's slip and fall. (ECF Nos. 23-4, 27-1).
Meadows Mall moves for summary judgment on all causes of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow summary judgment when
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A principal purpose
of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of
factually unsupported claims.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).
purposes of summary judgment, disputed factual issues should
be construed in favor of the non-moving party. Lujan v.
Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990).
However, to be entitled to a denial of summary judgment, the
nonmoving party must “set forth specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id.
determining summary judgment, a court applies a
burden-shifting analysis. The moving party must first satisfy
its initial burden. “When the party moving for summary
judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must
come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a
directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at
trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial
burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact
on each issue material to its case.” C.A.R. Transp.
Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480
(9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of
proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its
burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an
essential element of the non-moving party's case; or (2)
by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to make a
showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that
party's case on which that party will bear the burden of
proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at
323-24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden,
summary judgment must be denied and the court need not
consider the nonmoving party's evidence. See Adickes
v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159-60 (1970).
moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then
shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine
issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586
(1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the
opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact
conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the
claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge
to resolve the parties' differing ...