Craig Hanus v. United States ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    AUG 31 2018
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    CRAIG HANUS,                                     No.   17-55482
    Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No.
    5:16-cv-00922-DMG-KK
    and
    NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE                    MEMORANDUM*
    COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH,
    PENNSYLVANIA, Lien Claimant,
    Claimant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 29, 2018**
    Pasadena, California
    *
    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).
    Before: WARDLAW, BYBEE, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    Craig Hanus appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
    the United States for his claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 
    28 U.S.C. § 2674
    . We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
    The district court did not err in holding that the United States was entitled to
    summary judgment because, even if the United States knew of its independent
    contractor’s unsafe practice and failed to exercise its authority to correct that
    unsafe practice, “mere retention of the ability to control safety conditions is not
    enough” to sustain a claim of negligent exercise of retained control. Hooker v.
    Dep’t of Transp., 
    27 Cal. 4th 198
    , 209 (2002). Further, the district court did not err
    in holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the United
    States furnished unsafe equipment since there is no evidence in the record that the
    United States knew Hanus was using the equipment unsafely. McKown v. Wal-
    Mart Stores, Inc., 
    27 Cal. 4th 219
    , 225 (2002). Though Hanus’s brief contains
    references to inadequate lighting, he fails to raise the issue distinctly and therefore
    forfeited it. Kohler v. Inter-Tel Techs., 
    244 F.3d 1167
    , 1182 (9th Cir. 2001).
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-55482

Filed Date: 8/31/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021