United States District Court, S.D. Florida
BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant The Fresh
Market's (“Defendant” or “Fresh
Market”) Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No.  (the
“Motion”). Plaintiff Inderia Shields, LLC
(“Plaintiff”) has failed to timely respond to the
Motion. The Court has carefully reviewed the
Motion, the record, and is otherwise fully advised. For the
reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion is granted.
originally filed her Complaint in the Circuit Court in the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida. See ECF No. [1-2]. The action was
subsequently removed to federal court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. . The facts giving rise to
the instant action stem from Plaintiff's alleged slip and
fall that occurred while she was at the Fresh Market store
located at 12171 W. Sunrise Blvd., Plantation, Florida.
(“Fresh Market Store”). Id. at 2.
Plaintiff asserts a single claim of negligence against the
visiting the Defendant's business, Plaintiff claims she
fell on water when she reached the floral department of the
Fresh Market Store. ECF No. , at ¶ 1. Plaintiff has
no personal knowledge of when the water arrived on the area
of floor where she slipped. Id. at ¶ 9.
Plaintiff has no personal knowledge of how much time had
passed between the time the water first arrived on the floor
and the time of her fall. Id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiff
has no personal knowledge or evidence as to when the subject
area had last been cleaned or inspected inside the Fresh
Market Store. Id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiff has no
personal knowledge of any other prior falls that occurred in
the Fresh Market Store. Id. at ¶ 7. Fresh
Market now moves for summary judgment and contends that no
issue of material fact exists as it had no actual or
constructive notice of the water on the floor of the Fresh
Market Store, which is the subject of Plaintiff's claim.
Id. at ¶ 10.
may obtain summary judgment “if the movant shows that
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). An issue is genuine if “a
reasonable trier of fact could return judgment for the
non-moving party.” Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of
Fla. v. United States, 516 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir.
2008) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986)). A fact is material if it
“might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law.” Id. (quoting
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48). The Court views the
facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and
draws all reasonable inferences in the non-moving party's
favor. See Davis v. Williams, 451 F.3d 759, 763
(11th Cir. 2006). “The mere existence of a scintilla of
evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be
insufficient; there must be evidence on which a jury could
reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson,
477 U.S. at 252. Further, the Court does not weigh
conflicting evidence. See Skop v. City of Atlanta,
Ga., 485 F.3d 1130, 1140 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Carlin Comm'n, Inc. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel.
Co., 802 F.2d 1352, 1356 (11th Cir. 1986)).
moving party shoulders the initial burden of showing the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Shiver v.
Chertoff, 549 F.3d 1342, 1343 (11th Cir. 2008). Once
this burden is satisfied, “the nonmoving party
‘must do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.'”
Ray v. Equifax Info. Servs., L.L.C., 327 Fed.Appx.
819, 825 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). Instead,
“the non-moving party ‘must make a sufficient
showing on each essential element of the case for which he
has the burden of proof.'” Id. (quoting
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)).
Accordingly, the non-moving party must produce evidence,
going beyond the pleadings, and by its own affidavits, or by
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, designating specific facts to suggest that a reasonable
jury could find in the non-moving party's favor.
Shiver, 549 F.3d at 1343. Even “where the
parties agree on the basic facts, but disagree about the
factual inferences that should be drawn from those facts,
” summary judgment may be inappropriate. Warrior
Tombigbee Transp. Co., Inc. v. M/V Nan Fung, 695 F.2d
1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 1983).
instant Motion, Defendant seeks summary judgment on the basis
that Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden under Florida
Statutes, § 768.0755, Premises liability for transitory
foreign substances in a business establishment. Defendants
contend that Plaintiff has failed to establish that the
Defendant had any notice of the hazardous condition prior to
the Plaintiff's fall. ECF No. , at 6. Specifically,
Defendant argues that there is no record evidence that it had
actual or constructive knowledge of the water on the floor
prior to Plaintiff's fall and therefore, there is no
evidence that Defendant breached a duty. ECF No. , at 10.
Because Plaintiff has failed to establish this essential
element of her claim, Defendant argues that summary judgment
in its favor is appropriate.
all facts and drawing all inferences in Plaintiff's
favor, the Court agrees with the Defendant. There exists no
material issue of fact in dispute. As a matter of law,
Plaintiff has not established that Defendant had actual or
constructive notice of the water on which she allegedly
slipped. Thus, the Court agrees that summary judgment is
Premises Liability Standard
diversity case, the Court must apply the substantive law of
the state in which the case arose. See Pendergast v.
Sprint Nextel Corp., 592 F.3d 1119, 1132-33 (11th Cir.
2010). For that reason, the Court looks to Florida negligence
law. In a negligence claim, Florida law requires that a
plaintiff prove the following four elements: (1) the
defendant had a duty to conform to a certain standard of
conduct; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach
of that duty caused damages to the plaintiff, and (4) the
plaintiff sustained damages. Encarnacion v. Lifemark
Hospitals of Fla., 211 So.3d 275, 278-79 (Fla. 3d DCA
2017) (quoting Wilson-Greene v. City of Miami, 208
So.3d 1271 (2017)). In a premises liability case, Defendant,
as a premises owner, owes Plaintiff, as a business invitee,
“a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain [its]
premises in a safe condition.” Encarnacion,
211 So.3d at 278. To ...