Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mejia v. Stores

United States District Court, C.D. California

April 1, 2014

ESTELA MEJIA, an individual, Plaintiff,
v.
TARGET STORES, a Corporation; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants.

EUGENE J. EGAN, KAREN LIAO, MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendant TARGET CORPORATION.

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION

MANUEL L. REAL, District Judge.

TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

The motion of defendant TARGET CORPORATION for summary judgment, or alternatively, partial summary judgment, in the within action, came on regularly for hearing before this Court on March 17, 2014. Attorney Karen Liao appeared on behalf of defendant TARGET CORPORATION; there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff ESTELA MEJIA.

After considering the moving and opposition papers, the arguments of counsel, and all other matters presented to the Court, this Court GRANTED the motion of defendant TARGET CORPORATION.

1. Plaintiff's State Law Claim For Negligence Against Target

a. Undisputed Facts

1. Defendant Target Corporation ("Target") owns, operates and manages the retail store located at 14920 Raymer Street in Van Nuys, California 91405 ("the store"). [UF 1].

2. On the afternoon August 19, 2011, plaintiff ESTELA MEJIA ("plaintiff") and her two brothers went to shop at the store. [UF 2-4].

3. Plaintiff's brothers then waited in line as she went to use the restroom. [UF 5]. To get to the restroom, plaintiff went through one of the middle cash register lanes. [UF 5].

4. Plaintiff did not look at the floor from the time she walked through the cashier lane until the time that she slipped. [UF 6].

5. Plaintiff was walking and slipped before she entered the restroom. [UF 7]. Plaintiff slipped near the door that is used to enter the women's restroom, and she was about 3 feet away from the door when she slipped. [UF 7]. Plaintiff slipped directly in front of the ladies' room door. [UF 7].

6. Plaintiff's left foot slipped and her body went all the way down to the floor. [UF 8]. Plaintiff fell on her buttocks, but with her left knee hitting the floor. [UF 8]. Plaintiff also injured the thumb on her right hand. [UF 8].

7. Plaintiff did not see the liquid on the floor before she started to slip. [UF 9].

8. Plaintiff first saw the liquid on the floor when her brother Santos came over to help her up. [UF 10].

9. The spill was brown water, the color of Coca Cola, and was about the size of a small plate. [UF 11].

10. There was no ice in the liquid. [UF 12]

11. The liquid did not have an odor. [UF 13].

12. Plaintiff does not remember if there were any wheel tracks through the liquid. [UF 14].

13. Plaintiff didn't look at whether there were any footprints through the liquid. [UF 15].

14. Plaintiff did not notice any dirt in the liquid. [UF 16].

15. Plaintiff had liquid on her clothes, especially her left knee. [UF 17].

16. Plaintiff does not remember if the liquid was cold or hot. [UF 18].

17. Plaintiff does not know where the liquid came from. [UF 19].

18. Plaintiff does not know how long the liquid was on the floor before ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.