Turner

Turner v. Walmart CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 2026B337896California1,969 words

Opinion

Opinion

Baker, J.

I. BACKGROUND

In May 2022, Turner sued Walmart for premises liability. In her form complaint, she alleged she slipped and fell at a Walmart Supercenter in Lancaster two months earlier as a result of the dangerous condition of the sales floor.

A. Walmart’s First Motion for Terminating Sanctions Walmart answered the complaint by generally denying the allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses. Concurrent with its answer, Walmart served Turner with written discovery requests.1 Turner did not respond to the discovery requests and Walmart moved to compel responses. Turner did not file a

1 Among other things, Walmart sought the identity of all heath care providers who treated Turner since her fall and for 10 years prior. Walmart also requested all documents relating or referring to any medical examination and/or treatment Turner received as a result of any injuries she sustained because of the fall.

2 written opposition to any of the motions to compel. The trial court granted the motions and directed Turner to serve verified responses within 10 days; in addition, the court, pursuant to the discovery statutes, imposed sanctions of $250 on Turner and her counsel. Turner…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.