Court Opinion

ID: 9957084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 17:01:01.721004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:06.095868
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 3 2024
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAHLIA LOCKHART,                                No.   23-15872

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00938-JJT

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES NORTH
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; et
al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted April 1, 2024**
                                Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS, BADE, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

      Plaintiff Dahlia Lockhart appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment on her claims for strict liability and negligence for a hand injury caused

by a leaf blower. She also appeals sanctions the district court imposed on her for

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
failing to timely serve Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 disclosures. We affirm.

      We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review orders granting

motions for summary judgment de novo. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Cap.

Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2013). We review orders imposing

sanctions for an abuse of discretion. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of

Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007).

      1.     Lockhart’s strict liability claims fail because there is no genuine issue

of material fact about the dangerousness of the product. Lockhart brings strict

liability claims based on two theories: design defect and manufacturing defect. To

prove a design defect, a plaintiff must show that the product was in an unreasonably

dangerous condition when it left the defendant’s control. See Golonka v. Gen.

Motors Corp., 65 P.3d 956, 962 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). To show a manufacturing

defect, a plaintiff must prove that something went wrong during the manufacturing

process and that, as a result, the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary

consumer would expect. Id.; Gomulka v. Yavapai Mach. & Auto Parts, Inc., 745

P.2d 986, 988–89 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). Lockhart has presented no evidence

relevant to the risks and benefits of the product to prove it was in an unreasonably

dangerous condition. See Gomulka, 745 P.2d at 989 (stating that one way to

determine whether a product is unreasonably dangerous is by conducting a

risk/benefit analysis). She has also presented no evidence that anything went wrong

                                          2
during the manufacturing process. Lockhart’s expert report does not create a genuine

issue of material fact because, although it analyzes the source of the apparent failure

in the leaf blower, it does not present evidence relevant to the risk/benefit analysis

for the product. See Loomis v. Cornish, 836 F.3d 991, 997 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Mere

allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary

judgment.” (alteration omitted) (quoting Nelson v. Pima Cmty. Coll., 83 F.3d 1075,

1081–82 (9th Cir. 1996))). Lockhart’s strict liability claims thus fail.

      2.     Lockhart’s negligence claims fail because there is no genuine issue of

material fact about defendants’ conduct or knowledge at the time the leaf blower

was manufactured. Lockhart alleges negligent design and negligent failure to warn.

To prove negligent design, a plaintiff must show that “the manufacturer acted

unreasonably at the time of design or manufacture in light of the foreseeable risk of

injury from use of the product.” Golonka, 65 P.3d at 962. To prove negligent failure

to warn, a plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty to warn consumers about

the product’s dangerousness because the product’s risk was known or knowable.

Powers v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 174 P.3d 777, 783 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). Nothing in the

record shows what a reasonably prudent manufacturer would have known regarding

the safety of the materials used to make the leaf blower. Lockhart has also presented

no evidence that the alleged inadequacy of any warning caused her injury.

Lockhart’s negligence claims thus fail.

                                           3
       3.     The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions on

Plaintiff for failing to serve Rule 26 disclosures. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(a)(3) governs pretrial disclosures and requires that each party provide “the name

and, if not previously provided, the address and telephone number of each witness”

as well as “an identification of each document or other exhibit.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(3)(A)(i), (iii). Courts have discretion to order sanctions for violations of Rule

26, including by “order[ing] payment of the reasonable expenses, including

attorney’s fees, caused by the failure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(A), (C). Because

Lockhart failed to timely serve Rule 26 disclosures, the district court did not abuse

its discretion by imposing a monetary sanction of a portion of defendants’ attorneys’

fees. Lockhart argues that any failure to disclose was cured by her ultimate

disclosures, which did not include new information. But the district court was

entitled to manage its case schedule, and Lockhart provided no good cause for her

extended failure to disclose even after acknowledging the missed deadline. See

Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005)

(addressing failure to disclose witnesses and finding “[d]isruption to the schedule of

the court and other parties . . . is not harmless.”).

       AFFIRMED.

                                            4