N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C ITY OF POM ONA, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. SQM NOR TH AM ER IC A C ORPOR ATION, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 15-56062 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-00167-R GKVB K
M EM O R ANDUM *

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 R . Ga ry Kla usne r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

10, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : WALLAC E, C HR ISTEN, a nd WATFORD , C irc u it Judge s. Afte r a se ve n-da y tria l, a jury found SQM North Am e ric a C orporat ion (SQM ) not lia

ble for c a using pe rc hlora

t e c onta m i nation in the C ity

of Pom ona ’ s (Pom o na ’ s) wate r sy s te m . Pom ona now a ppe a ls from

tha t judgm e nt. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we va c at e the distric t c ourt’ s



# F IL ED
AUG 7 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.judgm e nt a

nd re m a nd for a ne wtria l. W e a ddre ss Pom ona ’ s m a in a rgum e nts in a
c onc urre ntly file d opinion, C ity of Pomona v . SQM N

orth Ame ric a C

orporation , __F.3d__ (9th C ir. 2017). W e a ddre ss two subsidia ry issue s ra i se d by

Pom ona in this m e m orandum

disposition. Pom ona first a sse rts tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d

by re fusing to give

a jury instruc tion on C a lifornia ’ s c onsum e r e xpe c tation te st. A distric t c ourt’ s form ulat ion of c ivil jury instruc tions is re vie we d for an a buse of disc re tion. Louis Vuitton Malle t ie r, S.A. v . Ak anocSolutions, Inc

. , 658 F.3d 936, 941 (9th C ir. 2011). Se c o nd, Pom o na argue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by pre c luding te stim ony
a bout thefe a sibility

of a n a lte rnative fe rtiliz e r. W e re vie w e vide ntia ry rulings for
an a b use of disc re tion. C

ity of Pomona v

. SQM N

o rth Ame ric a C

orp. , 750 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th C ir. 2014). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

pre c luding Pom ona from
re ly ing on C a lifornia ’ s c o nsum e r e xpe c t ation te s t. Unde r C a lifornia la w, the re are two pote ntia l te sts for proving a de sign de fe c t—

the c onsum e r e xpe c tation te st a nd the risk-be ne fit te st.

Whe the r a

pla intiff m ay

proc e e d unde r the c onsum e r e xpe c tat ion te st or whe the r de sign de fe c t m ust be a sse sse d sole ly

unde r the risk-be ne fit te st is depe nde n t upon the pa

rtic ula r fa c ts in e a c h c a se . B e c a

use in m any situa tions . . . the

c onsum e r . . . would ha

ve no ide a how
2sa fe the produc t c o uld be m a de , the c onsum e r e xpe c tat ion te st is re se rve d for c a se s in whic h the e v e r y day e x pe rie nc e of the produc t’ s use rs pe rm its a c onc lusion tha

t the produc t’ s de sign viola te d minimum sa fe ty a ssum ptions a nd is thus de fe c tive re

gardle ss of e x pe rt opinion about the

me rits of the de

sign
. . . . Som e produc ts c a

use injury in a

wa y tha t doe s not e nga ge its ordina

ry c onsum e rs’ re a sona

b le m i nim

um a ssum ptions a bout sa fe pe rform anc e . For e xam ple , the ordina ry c onsum e r of an a

utom obile sim

p ly ha s no ide a how it should pe

rform in a ll fore se e a

ble situa tions, or how sa fe i t should be

m a de a g a inst a ll fore se e a ble ha z ards. In thosec a se s, whe re the pla intiff’ s the ory of de fe c t se e k s to e xam ine the be hav ior of obsc ure c om pone nts unde r c om

ple x c irc um sta

n c e s outsidethe ordina ry e xpe rie nc e of the c onsum e r, the c onsum e r e xpe c tat ion te st is ina

pplic a ble ; a nd de fe c t m ay

only be prove d by

re sort to therisk-be ne fit a na ly sis. Mc C abev . Ame ric an Honda Motor C o., Inc

. , 100 C a l. App. 4th 1111, 1121–22 (2002) (inte rna l c ita

tions a nd quota tion m arks om itte d) (e m

pha sis in origina

l). He re , the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion, tha t the im p a c t of c o m

m e rc ia l use of fe rtiliz e r m ore tha

n fifty y e a rs a go wa s not pa

rt of the e ve ry da

y e xpe rie nc e of ordina ry c onsum e rs, did not c onstitute an a buse of disc re tion. B a se d on the te c hnic a l a

n d sc ie ntific nature of the c onta m ination a

t issue , and the “ o bsc ure
c om pone nts unde r c om

ple x c irc um sta

n c e s ,” Pom o na

did not m e e t its burde n of showing e ntitle m e nt to a

c onsum e r e xpe c tation te st instruc tion. Id . at 1122. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

pre c luding e xpe rt te stim ony
3a

bout thefe a sibility

of a n a lte rnative fe rtiliz e r. Pom ona wa s not diligent in de signa ting a n a l te rnative de sign e xpe rt. Ac c ordingly , the re wa s not good c a use to
re ope n disc ove ry , pe rm it de s igna tion of Pom ona ’ s proffe re d e xpe rt, a nd a llow
e xpe rt te s tim ony

on the subje c t. Se e J

ohnson v . Mammoth Re c re ations, Inc

. , 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th C ir. 1992). Howe v e r, for the re a s ons sta te d in the c onc urre ntly

file d opinion, the

distric t
c ourt’ s judge m e nt is V ACAT E D and the c a se is RE M ANDE D for a ne wtria l.

4