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.

Frankel v. Aramark Services Incorporated

United States District Court, D. Arizona

July 16, 2018

Ivy Frankel, Plaintiff,
v.
Aramark Services Incorporated, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          JAMES A. TEILBORG SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pending before the Court is Defendant Aramark Services, Inc.'s (“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 67). The Court now rules on the motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On February 16, 2018, Defendant filed the pending Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 67). Plaintiff filed a timely Response on February 26, 2018 (Doc. 69). Defendant then filed a Reply on March 12, 2018 (Doc. 73).

         Plaintiff brings a premises liability claim against Defendant in her First Amended Complaint (Doc. 1-2).

         A. Facts

         Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant and other unknown entities. (Doc. 1-2 at 2). The following facts are either undisputed or recounted in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

         On January 5, 2015, Plaintiff was in an office cafeteria located at 1820 East Sky Harbor Circle South, Phoenix, AZ 85034. (Defendant's Statement of Facts (“DSOF”), Doc. 68 ¶ 2; Plaintiff's Statement of Facts (“PSOF”), Doc. 72 ¶ 2). Aramark operates the cafeteria pursuant to a food services agreement, but does not own the property. (DSOF ¶ 3; PSOF ¶ 3). Plaintiff allegedly slipped on an unidentified “clear liquid substance” and fell on the cafeteria floor near a self-service soft drink dispenser. (DSOF ¶ 4; PSOF ¶ 4; Doc. 72-1 at 4). Plaintiff was injured as a result of the fall, hitting her head and arm on a nearby counter, (Doc. 72-1 at 3). She incurred medical care and treatment expenses as a result. (Doc. 1-2 at 5). There is no evidence regarding how the liquid got onto the floor or how long it was on the floor before the incident. (Doc. 68-4 at 1-2). It is unknown who or what caused the condition. (Id. at 3). Discovery closed on January 26, 2018. (Doc. 42).

         Having set forth the pertinent factual and procedural background, the Court turns to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

         II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

         In a diversity case, a federal court applies state substantive law, but federal procedural law. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). The federal summary judgment standard is procedural, therefore it controls in a diversity case in federal court. Gasaway v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir. 1994) (“In diversity cases, procedural issues related to summary judgment are controlled by federal law.”).

         Summary judgment is appropriate when “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). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support that assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits, or declarations, stipulations . . . admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials, ” or by “showing that materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Id. 56(c)(1)(A), (B). Thus, summary judgment is mandated “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

         Initially, the movant bears the burden of demonstrating to the Court the basis for the motion and the elements of the cause of action upon which the non-movant will be unable to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 323. The burden then shifts to the non-movant to establish the existence of material fact. Id. A material fact is any factual issue that may affect the outcome of the case under the governing substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The non-movant “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts” by “com[ing] forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). A dispute about a fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248. The non-movant's bare assertions, standing alone, are insufficient to create a material issue of fact and defeat a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 247-48. In the summary judgment context, however, the Court construes all disputed facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 2004).

         At the summary judgment stage, the Court's role is to determine whether there is a genuine issue available for trial. There is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence in favor of the non-moving party for a jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 249-50. “If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Id. (citations omitted). “[A] party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

         III. PREMISES LIABILITY CLAIM

         In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant acted negligently by causing and/or failing to remedy a dangerous condition which led Plaintiff to slip, fall, and become injured. (Doc. 1-2 at 4-5). In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot prove that: (1) Defendant had notice of the condition that caused her fall, or (2) Defendant acted unreasonably under the circumstances. (Doc. 67 at 1). Defendant argues that Plaintiff therefore cannot establish a prima facie case for premises liability, making summary judgment appropriate in favor of Defendant. (Id. at 3).

         A. ...


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.