Gutierrez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1:17-cv-00006

Plaintiff Evaristo Gutierrez sued Wal-Mart after slipping on a greasy substance at Wal-Mart Store #1000, asserting a premises-liability claim for failure to inspect, warn, or cure
Defendants removed the action to federal court and moved for summary judgment
Gutierrez did not file any response or request an extension to respond to the summary-judgment motion
Testimony: Gutierrez testified he did not know how or how long the substance had been on the floor and that Wal‑Mart employees gave no indication they knew of it before the fall
Wal‑Mart’s assistant manager testified he did not see the spill and had received no reports of a spill that day
Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment for Wal‑Mart because Gutierrez produced no evidence of actual or constructive notice

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wal‑Mart had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition	Gutierrez asserts Wal‑Mart had notice of the slippery condition that caused his fall	Wal‑Mart argues there is no evidence it knew the substance existed before the fall	No evidence of actual knowledge; summary judgment warranted
Whether Wal‑Mart had constructive notice (condition existed long enough to be discovered)	Gutierrez contends Wal‑Mart failed to discover and remedy the hazard	Wal‑Mart points to lack of temporal evidence showing how long the substance was on the floor	No temporal evidence of the condition’s duration; no constructive notice; summary judgment warranted
Whether plaintiff presented a genuine issue of material fact to avoid summary judgment	Gutierrez failed to file a response and provided no affirmative evidence on notice	Wal‑Mart met burden to show absence of evidence on notice element	Court granted summary judgment for Wal‑Mart despite no response from plaintiff because movant proved entitlement as a matter of law
Whether summary judgment may be entered when the nonmovant does not respond	N/A (no response filed)	Local rule notes nonresponse is treated as no opposition, but summary judgment cannot rest on default; movant must prove entitlement	Court applied governing summary-judgment standards and found Wal‑Mart entitled to judgment as a matter of law

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment movant’s initial burden and Rule 56 principles)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute standard for material facts)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (viewing facts and inferences in the nonmovant’s favor at summary judgment)
Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992) (elements of premises-liability claim)
CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. 2000) (constructive notice requires condition to exist long enough for discovery)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. 2002) (temporal evidence is central to constructive-notice claims)
City of Corsicana v. Stewart, 249 S.W.3d 412 (Tex. 2008) (actual knowledge requires proof the condition existed at the time of the accident)