CARDOZA v. TARGET CORPORATION 50 (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

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.

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., 26 Cal.4th 1200, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 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.