Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03852/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03852-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Baycol Products Litigation

Bayer AG
Appellee
Bayer Corporation
Appellee
Vincent J. Caravella
Appellant
SmithKline Beecham Corporation
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3852

___________

In re: Baycol Products Litigation *

*

---------------------------- *

*

Vincent J. Caravella, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Bayer AG; Bayer Corporation; *

Smithkline Beecham Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

doing business as GlaxoSmithKline, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 29, 2009

Filed: January 7, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Caravella appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his products-liability diversity action. Having carefully reviewed the

Appellate Case: 08-3852 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2010 Entry ID: 3622082
-2-

record, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s exclusion of the opinion

of Caravella’s expert, see Bland v. Verizon Wireless, L.L.C., 538 F.3d 893, 896 (8th

Cir. 2008), or in the court’s discovery rulings, see Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d

630, 637 (8th Cir. 2007). We also agree with the district court’s determination that,

without an expert opinion as to causation, there were no trialworthy issues on

Caravella’s claims under New York law. See Bannister v. Bemis Co., 556 F.3d 882,

884 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing de novo summary judgment order and interpretation

of state law). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-3852 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2010 Entry ID: 3622082