Adam Phillippi v. Stryker Corporation , 471 F. App'x 663 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADAM PHILLIPPI, No. 10-16651
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02445-JAM-
GGH
v.
STRYKER CORPORATION; STRYKER MEMORANDUM *
SALES CORPORATION, Michigan
corporations,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 13, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, NOONAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Adam Phillippi appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor
of Stryker Corporation and Stryker Sales Corporation (“Stryker”) in Phillippi’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1
diversity products liability action. Reviewing the district court’s order de novo, see
Alpha Delta Chi-Delta Chapter v. Reed, 648 F.3d 790, 796 (9th Cir. 2011), we
affirm.
Phillippi argues that as a result of the implantation of a Stryker pain pump,
he suffered chondrolysis, the complete or nearly complete loss of cartilage, in his
shoulder joint. However, as the district court found, Phillippi provided insufficient
evidence to raise a known or knowable risk of chondrolysis at the time of
Phillippi’s surgery such that Stryker had a duty to warn. See Brown v. Superior
Court, 751 P.2d 470, 475-76 (Cal. 1988).
Phillippi also argues that the district court erred in excluding the declaration
of Dr. Younger. Because the district court clearly found that the declaration was
self-serving and lacking foundation, we hold that its exclusion was not an abuse of
discretion. See ACLU of Nev. v. City of Las Vegas, 333 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir.
2003) (holding that evidentiary rulings made in the context of summary judgment
are reviewed for an abuse of discretion); see also FTC v. Publ’g Clearing House,
Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A conclusory, self-serving affidavit,
lacking detailed facts and any supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a
genuine issue of material fact.”).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2
3