Hewlett-Packard, Inc., a California Corporation v. Praegitzer Industries, Inc., an Oregon Corporation

35 F.3d 571 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. HEWLETT-PACKARD, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PRAEGITZER INDUSTRIES, INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-35073. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 15, 1994. Decided Sept. 15, 1994. Before: TANG, FERGUSON, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Praegitzer Industries, Inc. and Robert Praegitzer appeal the district court's order granting Hewlett-Packard's motion for summary judgment. They argue that the district court erred in: (1) finding that they were aware of the risk of crystallization; (2) concluding that Hewlett-Packard acted reasonably in failing to warn them of the risk of crystallization because they were already "fully informed" of that risk; (3) requiring them to show proximate cause; (4) not addressing their failure to take proper safety precaution claims; and (5) treating them as a single entity. We reverse and…