N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DW ANE R OY M ILLER ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. DEPUY SYNTHES SALES, INC .,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e , and SYNTHES USA SALES, LLC ,

De fe nda n t. No. 19-16821 D.C . No. 3:17-c v-00325-R C J-C B C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R obe rt C live Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 7, 2020 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED DEC 10 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : M UR G U IA and C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SESSIONS, *** Distric t Judge . Pla intiff Dwa

yne M ille r a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s e ntry of sum m ary judgm e nt on his c la i m s for stric t lia b ility , ne glige nc e , a

nd bre a c h of im

plie d warran ty of fitne ss for a

pa rtic ula r purpose . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd we a ffirm . 1 W e re vie w de novo. B ranc h Bank ing &Tr. C

o. v . D.M.S.I., LLC , 871 F.3d 751, 759 (9th C ir. 2017). W e de te rm ine whe the r the re is a ge nuine disputea s to any m a te ria l fa c t, Fe d. R . C i v. P. 56(a ), and whe the r the distric t c ourt c orre c tly a pplie d the re le va

n t substa ntive la w. Se e Frudde n v . Pilling , 877 F.3d 821, 828 (9th C ir. 2017). W e v i e w the e vide n c e in the light m ost fa v o ra ble to the pa

rty a ga inst whom

sum m ary judgm e nt is gra

nte d. Id . 1. W e first c onc lude the distric t c ourt did not err by granting sum

m ary judgm e nt for De Puy

on M ille r’ s stric t lia

bility c l a im . Unde r Ne va da

la w, to pre v a i l on a

c la im of stric t produc ts lia

bility for m anufa c turing or de sign de fe c t, a pla i ntiff m

ust prove tha

t: (1) the de fe nda

nt pla c e d a

de fe c tive produc t in the m arke t; (2) the produc t wa s de fe c tive whe n it le ft the de fe nda n t’ s posse ssion, a

nd

* * * The Honora

ble W illia m K. Se ssions III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ve rm ont, sitting by de s igna tion. 1 The pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c t s a

nd we re c ount the m

only a s ne c e ssa ry to re solve the issue s on a ppe a l. 2(3) the de fe c t c a use d pla intiff’ s injurie s. Ford Motor C o. v . Tre jo , 402 P.3d 649, 653 (Ne v. 2017) (c iting Shoshone C oc a–C ola Bottling C

o. v . Dolinsk

i , 420 P.2d 855, 857–58 (Ne v. 1966)). 2 Ne va da a pplie s the c onsum e r-e xpe c tation te st to de te rm i ne whe t

h e r a produc t is de fe c tive . Id. A produc t is de fe c tive whe n it

“ fa il[s] to pe rform

in the m anne r re a s ona

bly to be e xpe c te d

in light of its na

ture and inte nde d func tion a

nd [is] m ore da

nge rous tha

n would bec onte m

plat e d by the ordina ry use r.” Id. (quoting Ginnis v
. Mape s Hote l C o rp. , 470 P.2d 135, 138 (Nev. 1970)). A c onsum e r’ s re a sona ble e xpe c t a tion m ay

be influe nc e d by

wa rnings tha t a c c om pa ny a produc t. Id. a t 656. He re , the pa c ka ge inse rts tha t a c c om p an ie d the de vic e we re m ore tha n a de quate to sa

tisfy the c o nsum e r-e xpe c tation te st. De Puy provide d a

wa rning inse rt with thede vic e indic ating it c ould fa il if the he a l ing proc e ss is de la y e d, re ga rdle s s of whe the r the patie nt put we ight on the he a ling bone . The wa

rning furthe r indic a te d tha

t a ll im p la nts a re subje c t to re pe a te d stre sse s in use and c an bre a k at a ny tim e . E ve n a ssum ing M ille r c om plie d with Dr. Dola

n’ s instruc tions

2 The distric t c ourt c om m itte d le g a l e rror whe n it om itte d the se c ond fa c t or of the te s t from

its de sc ription of the

la w— that a pla intiff m

ust show the produc t wa s de fe c tive w h e n it le ft de fe nda n t’ s posse ssion. This e rror wa s like ly ha rm le s s be c a

use the pa rtie s do not c onte st tha

t, if the produc t wa s de fe c tive , suc h a de fe c t wa s pre se nt whe n it le ft De Puy ’ s posse ssion. 3and did not put we ight on his he a ling le g, the produc t’ s wa rning put a

re a s ona ble c onsum e r on notic e tha

t in theworst c a se , the de vic e c ould fa il from we ar fatigue . Alte rnative ly , M ille r argue s sum m ary judgm e nt wa s ina

ppropria te be c a use his m e t a llurgist e xpe rt te stifie d to the e xiste nc e of a c o m m e rc ia l ly re a sona ble a lte rnative de sign. Mc C

ourt v . J .C
. Pe nne y C o. , 734 P.2d 696, 698 (Nev. 1987) (“ Alte rnative de sign is one fa c tor for the jury

to c onside r whe n e va luat ing whe the r a produc t is unre a s ona

bly da nge rous.” ). M ille r forfe ite d this a rgum e nt by fa iling to brie f the issue be fore the distric t c o urt. Single ton v . W ulff , 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976) (“ It is the ge ne ra l rule , of c ourse , tha t a fe de ra l a p pe lla te c ourt doe s not c onside r an issue n o t pa sse d upon be low.” ). 2. W e ne xt c onc lude the distric t c ourt did not err by granting sum

m ary judgm e nt for De Puy

on M ille r’ s ne glige nc e c la im . The e le m e nts of a ne g lige nc e c la im unde r Ne va d a

la w a re : (1) a n e xisting duty

of c are ; (2) bre a c h; (3) le ga l c a usation; a nd (4) da m a g e s. Turne r v . Mandalay Sports Ent., LLC

, 180 P.3d 1172, 1175 (Ne v. 2008). Theportion of the distric t c ourt’ s orde r re g arding M ille r’ s ne glige nc e c la im

wa s brie f but we m ay

a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c o rd. Mc Quillion v . Sc hw arze ne gge r , 369 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th C ir. 2004). W e c onc lude M ille r fa ile d to pre se n t e vide nc e tha t De Puy bre a c he d its duty

of c are by a c ting unre a sona

bly in te sting thede vic e . M ille r c ite s the de position te s tim ony of 4Pe te r Van C itte rs, De Puy ’ s e m ploy e e , who te stifie d that De Puy ha d not te ste d wha

t would ha ppe n if sc re ws broke b ut the im pla nt’ s pla te re m a ine d inta c t. 3 B ut Va n C itte rs a lso te stifie d tha

t De Puy did not pe rform

furthe r te sting be c a

use the ir goa l wa s to a v oid a ny fa ilure whatsoe ve r. M ille r fa ils to e xpla in why this m e thod of te sting bre a c he d De Puy ’ s duty of c are . M ille r’ s re lia

nc e on his e xpe rt, Dr. Ande rson, fa re s no be tte r. Dr. Ande rson a c knowle dge d he wa s only pe rform ing a

n a n a ly sis of thec a

use of the fa ilure . At his de position, Dr. Ande

rson te stifie d

the re wa s nothing wrong with the a lloy and m a te ria l use d to m ake t

he de vic e . And Dr. Ande rson a lso e xpla ine d tha t be c a use he is not a

m e dic a l d o c tor, he did not inve stiga te or form an opinion on whethe r De Puy bre a c he d its duty of c a

re in m an ufa c turing theproduc t. 3. Fina lly , we c onc lude the distric t c ourt did not err by

granting sum m ary judgm e nt on M ille r’ s c la im for bre a c h

of im plie d wa rranty of fitne ss for a pa rtic ula r purpose . First, De Puy did not wa rrant a ny pa rtic ula r purpose of the de vic e to M ille r. Se c ond, Ne va da la w doe s not a llow a

n im plie d wa rranty c la im in the a bse nc e of privity

be twe e n the pa

rtie s. Se e Ne v . R e v. Stat . § 104.2315; Amundse n v . Ohio Brass C o . , 513 P.2d 1234, 1235 (Ne v. 1973) (no bre a c h

of im plie d wa rranty c la im a bse nt le ga l re lationship be twe e n c onsum e r a nd

3 M ille r did not ple a d a the ory of ne glige nt te sting in his c om pla int. 5m anufa c ture r). M ille r’ s c l a im fa ils a s a m a tte r of la

wbe c a u se he did not provide e vide nc e tha

t he wa s in privity

with De Puy . AFFIRM E D. Pla intiff-a

ppe lla nt to be ar c osts.

6