NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM HOLLEY, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES NORTH 

AM., et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15325

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05475-WHO 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William H. Orrick, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 12, 2020 

San Francisco, California

Before: M. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BURGESS,** District 

Judge.

In this diversity suit, Plaintiffs William Jeff Holley and Phillip Calvin brought 

claims against Defendants Techtronic Industries North America, Inc., and One 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States Chief District Judge 

for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUL 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-15325

World Technologies, Inc. for manufacturing defect, negligence, and loss of 

consortium after Holley was injured while operating a miter saw that Defendants 

manufactured. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants improperly assembled

the carriage bolt, lock nut, and Loctite 243 required to secure the miter saw’s lower 

blade guard. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Holley cannot 

establish by a preponderance of the evidence that such a defect existed in the saw at 

the time it left Defendants’ control. The District Court granted summary judgment 

for Defendants on Plaintiffs’ three claims. Plaintiffs timely appealed. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reverse and remand.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Suzuki 

Motor Corp. v. Consumers of Union of U.S., Inc., 330 F.3d 1110, 1131 (9th Cir. 

2003). “We must therefore determine, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material 

fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law.” 

Id. The nonmoving party may rely on circumstantial evidence to defeat a motion for 

summary judgment. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 153‒59 (1970). 

When evaluating evidence, “we must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the 

nonmoving party, including questions of credibility and the weight to be accorded 

particular evidence.” Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 520 

(1991) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)).
3 19-15325

Plaintiffs produced enough admissible evidence to create a genuine dispute of 

material fact regarding whether there was a defect in the saw when it left Defendants’ 

control—the crux of Plaintiffs’ manufacturing defect and negligence claims. See, 

e.g., Barrett v. Atlas Powder Co., 86 Cal. App. 3d 560, 564 (1978). First, Holley 

testified that the saw was new, sealed in packaging, and in pristine condition when 

he purchased it from a third-party seller. Despite observing wear around the carriage

bolt, Plaintiffs’ expert opined that the wear does not necessarily indicate that the saw 

was used prior to Holley’s purchase. Second, the parts at issue are internal 

components that are only accessible by partially disassembling the saw. In light of 

Holley’s testimony that he purchased the saw in sealed packaging and had not 

accessed the parts at issue, it could reasonably be inferred from the nature and 

location of these parts that the defect resulted from faulty manufacturing. Third, 

evidence shows that there was no Loctite 243 residue on the carriage bolt, even 

though the manufacturing instructions specify that Loctite would be applied directly 

to the carriage bolt prior to fastening the lock nut. Viewing the evidence in the light 

most favorable to Plaintiffs and drawing all reasonable inferences for Plaintiffs, there 

remain genuine issues of material fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary 

judgment on Plaintiffs’ manufacturing defect and negligence claims. Because 

Plaintiff Calvin’s loss of consortium claim is dependent on Plaintiff Holley’s tort 

claims, the District Court also dismissed it in error. See Leonard v. John Crane, Inc., 
4 19-15325

206 Cal. App. 4th 1274, 1288 (2012) (a loss of consortium claim “stands or falls” 

with the spouse’s actionable tortious injury) (quoting Hahn v. Mirda, 147 Cal. App. 

4th 740, 746 (2007)).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.