Kusmirek

MEMORANDUM *

Louise Kusmirek (“Kusmirek”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. (“MGM”). Kusmirek sued MGM in district court for negligence resulting from an accident in MGM’s valet parking area, in which Kusmirek was hit by a car driven by a third party, Gerald Machowsky (“Machowsky”). The district court found as a matter of law that (1) MGM did not owe Kusmirek a duty of care; and (2) even if MGM did owe Kusmirek a duty, MGM’s breach was not the proximate cause of Kusmirek’s injuries. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. Duty of Care. The district court correctly found that duty of care is a question of law under Nevada law. Scialabba v. Brandise Const. Co. Inc., 112 Nev. 965 , 921 P.2d 928, 930 (Nev.1996). This also includes the foreseeability component of the duty of care element. See Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) 651.015 (1995) (To determine whether “an owner or keeper of any hotel is civilly liable for the death or injury of a patron on the premises ..., the court shall determine as a matter of law whether the wrongful act was foresee *736 able”). Therefore, Kusmirek’s argument that the duty of…