N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT HCIRCUIT
JO NI SE Q UIRA, suc c e ssor -in-inte r e st to PAUL O L DS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. 3MCO M PANY, AK

A M inne sota M ining and M a nufac tur ing Com pany , De fe nda

nt,
a nd L O CKH E E D M ART IN CO R PO RAT IO N, DB A L o c khe e d M ar tin Ae r onautic s, FK A L o c khe e d M ar tin T a c tic al Sy s te m s, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-56921 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-08539-R -M R W
M E M O RANDUM *

JO NI SE Q UIRA, suc c e ssor -in-inte r e st to PAUL O L DS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. No. 14-55383 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-08539-R -M R W 

# FIL ED OCT 27 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.pa ge 2

3MCO M PANY, AK

A M inne sota M ining and M a nufac tur ing Com pany , De fe nda

nt,
a nd UNIT E D T E C H NO L O G IE S CO R PO RAT IO N, sue d individuallyand as suc c e ssor -in-inte r e st to Pr att and W hitne y , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 31, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : K O Z INSKI , O ’SCANNL AIN and B YB E E , C irc uit Judge s. 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt to Loc khe e d ba se d on the gove rnm e nt c ontra c tor de fe nse . Se e B oy l e v. Unite d Te c hs. C orp., 487 U.S. 500, 512 (1988) (de sign de fe c t c la im s); Ge t z v. B oe ing C o., 654 F.3d 852, 866 (9th C ir. 2011) (fa ilure -to-wa rn c la im s). Loc khe e d introduc e d a ffidavits from Va le ntino Jime ne zan d De bora h Parke r e sta

b lishing the

e l e m e nts of this
a ffirm ative de fe nse . Se quira offe re d no c om

pe t e nt e vide nc e to re but it.pa ge 3

The a ffidavits show tha

t the Unite d State s a

pprove d “ re a sona

bly pre c ise spe c ific ations”re quiring Loc khe e d to usea sbe stos-c onta i ning “ Gove rnm e nt Furnishe d Equipm e nt” in theF-80 a irc ra ft, inc luding a J-33 e ngine and its inte grate d suba sse m

blie s. Se e B oy le , 487 U.S. a t 512. The se suba sse m

blie s c onta ine d bla

nke ts a nd va lve s, whic h Pa

ul Olds c la im e d

re le a se d a sbe s tos pa

rtic le s into thea ir whe re he worke d. M ore ove r, the e quipm e nt c onform e d to the gove rnm e nt’ s spe c ific ations be c a use Loc khe e d c om

p l ie d with a ll its dire c tive s for
c onstruc ting theF-80 a irc ra ft, inc luding theuse of spe c ific warnings. Se e Ge tz , 654 F.3d a

t 864, 866. Fina

lly , the Unite d State s kne w a bout theha z ards of
a sbe stos a s e arly

a s 1944—

w e ll be fore Olds a lle g e dly e nc ounte re d

it. The re fore , the re we re no da

nge rs known to Loc khe e d but not to the Unite d State s. Se e B oy le , 487 U.S. a

t 512. Se quira atte m pte d to introduc e the de c la ration of M a

rk Thom son to c ounte r Loc khe e d’ s a sse rtions. B ut thedistric t c ourt e xc lude d the Thom son de c la

ration for la c k of founda

t ion a nd be c a use Thom son “ m anufa c ture [d] . . . fa c tua l dispute s.” Se quira doe s not c ha lle nge this ruling on a ppe a l a nd is thus le ft without a

ny e vide nc e to c onte st Loc khe e d’ s a ffirm ative de fe nse . Ac c ordingly , “ the re is no ge nuine d isputea s to a

ny m ate ria l fa c t” and Loc khe e d “ is e ntitle d to judgme nt a s a
m atte r of la

w.” Fe d. R . C iv. P. 56(a).pa ge 4

2. UTC , a s suc c e ssor-in-inte re st to Pra tt & Whitne y , is a lso e ntitle d to
sum m ary judgm e nt be c a

u se Se quira

didn’ t pre se nt a

prim a fa c ie c a se of a sbe stos
e xposure . Se quira

didn’ t offe r c om

pe te nt e xpe rt e vide nc e showing tha t the
a sbe stos from

the Pratt & Whitne y

e ngine s wa s a

“ substa ntia l fa c t or” in c a

using his
m e sothe liom a . Se e R

uthe rford v. Owe n s-Illinois, Inc ., 941 P.2d 1203, 1219 n.11 (C a l. 1997) (c iting Line awe ave r v. Pla nt Insula t ion C o., 37 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 902, 906 (C a l. C t. App. 1995)) (dire c ting m e sothe liom a and lung c anc e r pla i ntiffs to introduc e e xpe rt te stim o ny to show tha

t e xposure wa s a

“ substa ntia l fa c tor” in
c a using the ir injurie s). Having a dm itte d

tha t Olds fa ile d to pre se nt c om pe te nt e vide nc e or e ve n a ddre s s the point be fore the distric t c ourt, Se quira c a n ’ t a rgue the “ substa

ntia l fa c t or” issuehe re . W e don’ t re vie w issue s ra ise d for the first tim e on a p pe a l, m uc h le ss fa c tua l one s. Pfingston v. R ona n Eng’ g C o., 284 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th C ir. 2002).
AFFIRM E D.