Craig Hanus v. United States of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRAIG HANUS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH,
PENNSYLVANIA, Lien Claimant,
Claimant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-55482
D.C. No.
5:16-cv-00922-DMG-KK
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
AUG 31 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 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

-- 2 of 2 --