NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JONI SEQUIRA, successor-in-interest

to PAUL OLDS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

3M COMPANY, AKA Minnesota

Mining and Manufacturing Company,

 Defendant,

 and

LOCKHEED MARTIN

CORPORATION, DBA Lockheed

Martin Aeronautics, FKA Lockheed

Martin Tactical Systems,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-56921

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-08539-R-MRW

MEMORANDUM*

JONI SEQUIRA, successor-in-interest

to PAUL OLDS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

No. 14-55383

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-08539-R-MRW

FILED

OCT 27 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
page 2

3M COMPANY, AKA Minnesota

Mining and Manufacturing Company,

 Defendant,

 and

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES

CORPORATION, sued individually and

as successor-in-interest to Pratt and

Whitney,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 31, 2015

Pasadena, California

Before: KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

1. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Lockheed

based on the government contractor defense. See Boyle v. United Techs. Corp.,

487 U.S. 500, 512 (1988) (design defect claims); Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d

852, 866 (9th Cir. 2011) (failure-to-warn claims). Lockheed introduced affidavits

from Valentino Jimenez and Deborah Parker establishing the elements of this

affirmative defense. Sequira offered no competent evidence to rebut it. 
page 3

The affidavits show that the United States approved “reasonably precise

specifications” requiring Lockheed to use asbestos-containing “Government

Furnished Equipment” in the F-80 aircraft, including a J-33 engine and its

integrated subassemblies. See Boyle, 487 U.S. at 512. These subassemblies

contained blankets and valves, which Paul Olds claimed released asbestos particles

into the air where he worked. Moreover, the equipment conformed to the

government’s specifications because Lockheed complied with all its directives for

constructing the F-80 aircraft, including the use of specific warnings. See Getz,

654 F.3d at 864, 866. Finally, the United States knew about the hazards of

asbestos as early as 1944—well before Olds allegedly encountered it. Therefore,

there were no dangers known to Lockheed but not to the United States. See Boyle,

487 U.S. at 512.

Sequira attempted to introduce the declaration of Mark Thomson to counter

Lockheed’s assertions. But the district court excluded the Thomson declaration for

lack of foundation and because Thomson “manufacture[d] . . . factual disputes.”

Sequira does not challenge this ruling on appeal and is thus left without any

evidence to contest Lockheed’s affirmative defense. Accordingly, “there is no

genuine dispute as to any material fact” and Lockheed “is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 
page 4

2. UTC, as successor-in-interest to Pratt & Whitney, is also entitled to

summary judgment because Sequira didn’t present a prima facie case of asbestos

exposure. Sequira didn’t offer competent expert evidence showing that the

asbestos from the Pratt & Whitney engines was a “substantial factor” in causing his

mesothelioma. See Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 941 P.2d 1203, 1219 n.11

(Cal. 1997) (citing Lineaweaver v. Plant Insulation Co., 37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 902, 906

(Cal. Ct. App. 1995)) (directing mesothelioma and lung cancer plaintiffs to

introduce expert testimony to show that exposure was a “substantial factor” in

causing their injuries).

Having admitted that Olds failed to present competent evidence or even

address the point before the district court, Sequira can’t argue the “substantial

factor” issue here. We don’t review issues raised for the first time on appeal, much

less factual ones. Pfingston v. Ronan Eng’g Co., 284 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir.

2002).

AFFIRMED.