Beverly Munguia; Ruben Munguia v. GRELYN OF MAUI, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company, DBA McDonald’s Dairy Road

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BEVERLY MUNGUIA; RUBEN
MUNGUIA,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
GRELYN OF MAUI, LLC, a Hawaii
limited liability company, DBA
McDonald’s Dairy Road,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
DOE ENTITIES 1-50,
Defendant.
No. 11-15751
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00058-HG-BMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 14, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, McKEOWN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAY 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Grelyn of Maui, LLC, appeals the judgment entered against it after a jury
trial. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural
history of the case, we need not recount it here.
The district court neither erred in providing, nor in formulating, the “mode
of operation” premises liability instruction to the jury. Hawaii premises liability
law permits the instruction in cases such as this one, where a proprietor’s self-
service food operation involves a reasonably foreseeable risk of remnant food and
grease buildup on floors. Gump v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 5 P.3d 407, 410-11
(Haw. 2000); Gump v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 5 P.3d 418, 431-32 (Haw. Ct. App.
1999). Although contested, there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to allow
the instruction to be given to the jury under the specific facts of the case.
The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict for the reasons explained
in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned order denying the motion for
judgment as a matter of law. See E.E.O.C. v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d
951, 963 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] jury’s verdict must be upheld if there is evidence
adequate to support the jury’s conclusion . . . .”) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --