Rust

Rust v. Target Corporation

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJanuary 18, 20223:20-cv-02349California3,028 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

21 On April 8, 2021, Plaintiff Peggy Rust filed an Amended Complaint against 22 Defendants Target Corporation (“Target”) and Does 1 through 10. (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff 23 alleges that on April 5, 2019, she slipped and fell in a “large spill of a cleaning solution” at 24 a Target store in Chula Vista. (Id. ¶ 7). Plaintiff alleges that she suffered injuries to her 25 nervous system, back, and legs that required surgery. Plaintiff brings one claim against 26 Defendants for negligence under section 1714(a) of the California Civil Code. Plaintiff 27 28 seeks damages, medical expenses, and costs. Plaintiff further seeks punitive damages against Defendant Target under section 3294 of the California Civil Code. On August 3, 2021, Defendant Target filed an Answer. (ECF No. 46). The parties engaged in fact discovery. On August 18, 2021, Defendant Target filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 47). Target asserts that Plaintiff “cannot meet her burden to prove the necessary element of her claim [] that Target breached its duty of care,” because there is no evidence that Target “unreasonably delayed in correcting the allegedly…

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.