
    Adam PHILLIPPI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STRYKER CORPORATION; Stryker Sales Corporation, Michigan corporations, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-16651.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Jan. 13, 2012.
    Filed March 9, 2012.
    Leslie Wynn O’Leary, Thomas B. Powers, Esquire, Michael L. Williams, Esquire, Williams Love O’Leary & Powers, PC, Laura B. Kalur, Esquire, Kalur Law Office, Portland, OR, Curtis Brooks Cutter, Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP, Sacramento, CA, Daniel Patrick Leonard, Esquire, Baker, Keener & Nahra, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Ernest Frank Woodson, Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Hall R. Marston, Ralph A. Campillo, Esquire, Mario Horwitz, Matthew A. Reed, Wendy Anne Tucker, Arameh Zargham, Sedgwick LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Vaughn Alan Crawford, Esquire, Trial, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, Wayne Allen Wolff, Esquire, Sedgwick LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: WALLACE, NOONAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Adam Phillippi appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Stryker Corporation and Stryker Sales Corporation (“Stryker”) in Phillippi’s 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, 44 Cal.3d 1049, 245 Cal.Rptr. 412, 751 P.2d 470, 475-76 (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 Cr. 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     