the floor “for some time period prior to the fall” is Boyd’s burden, not WalMart’s. Because Boyd did not meet that burden, the district court properly granted Wal-Mart summary judgment. AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. ' 1 . Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc., 398 F.3d 345, 349 (5th Cir.2005). 2 . Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). 3 . Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)). 4 . La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.6(B)(2) (2007). 5 . See id. § 9:2800.6(0(1). 6 . 699 So.2d 1081, 1084-85 (La.1997); see also O'Brien v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 720 So.2d 1263, 1266-67 (La.Ct.App.1998)
holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time holding that the plaintiff had offered insufficient evidence to establish deliberate indifference in a failuretotrain claim in part because the plaintiff did not present evidence that the training received was inadequate or evidence of any specific additional training that the employees should have received holding that judgment as a matter of law was proper when the plaintiff did not present any evidence that the defendant was motivated by the eeoc complaint knowledge is necessary to establish causation but it is not sufficient holding that the plaintiff did not establish a waiver where the defendants answer had put the plaintiff on notice of an arbitration defense