DOLORES MARTINEZ V. NAVY LEAGUE OF THE U.S., No. 14-56682 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOLORES MARTINEZ, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-56682 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-05533-ODWFFM v. NAVY LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Dolores Martinez appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her diversity action seeking damages for negligence related to a trip and fall accident. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014). 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 Martinez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant owed her a duty of care. See Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 14 (Cal. 2001) (elements of a premises liability negligence claim under California law); Sprecher v. Adamson Cos., 636 P.2d 1121, 1126 (Cal. 1981) (“[T]he duty to take affirmative action for the protection of individuals coming upon the land is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martinez’s motion for reconsideration because Martinez failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). We reject as unsupported by the record Martinez’s contention that the district court was biased against her. AFFIRMED. 2 14-56682

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.