2003 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-25-2003

Magistrini v. One Hour Martinizing

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 02-2331

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Magistrini v. One Hour Martinizing" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 434.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/434
* Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2331

___________

KATHY MAGISTRINI

Appellant

v.

ONE HOUR MARTINIZING DRY CLEANING; MARTIN FRANCHISES, INC.;

DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; R.R. STREET & CO, INC.

JOHN DOE MANUFACTURERS, (1-50);

JILL DOES SUPPLIERS/DISTRIBUTORS, (51-100)

___________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

(D.C. Civil No. 96-cv-04991)

District Judge: The Honorable Faith S. Hochberg

___________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 11, 2003

BEFORE: SLOVITER, NYGAARD, and ALARCON,* Circuit Judges.
2

(Filed: June 25, 2003)

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Kathy Magistrini appeals a District Court’s Daubert hearing order that

precluded testimony from her causation expert. Magistrini also challenges the District

Court’s decision to admit certain testimony for the sole purpose of the Daubert hearing

and to employ Dr. Mark Weiss as a technical advisor.

When a party seeks to admit expert testimony, the District Court must make

an initial determination, in a preliminary hearing under Fed. R. Evid. 104(a), that the

requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702 have been met. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,

509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993). Rule 702 imposes a special obligation on the District Judge to

“ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but

reliable.” Id. at 589.

In assessing whether proffered scientific expert testimony is reliable, we

have explained that the District Court should admit expert testimony “if there are ‘good

grounds’ for the expert's conclusion” notwithstanding the judge's belief that there are

better grounds for some alternative conclusion. Heller v. Shaw, 167 F.3d 146, 152-53 (3d

Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). The District Court must also “examine the expert's
3

conclusions in order to determine whether they could reliably follow from the facts

known to the expert and the methodology used.” Id. at 153. However, “nothing in either

Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion

evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert. A court

may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the

opinion proffered.” General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 145-46 (1997).

We review the District Court’s decision to exclude or admit testimony

under Daubert, as well as to employ a technical advisor, for abuse of discretion. To

demonstrate abuse, Appellant must show that the District Court’s based “its opinion on a

clearly erroneous finding of fact, an erroneous legal conclusion, or an improper

application of law to fact.” LaSalle Nat. Bank v. First Conn. Holding Group, L.L.C.

XXIII, 287 F.3d 279, 288 (3d Cir. 2002).

Inasmuch as the District Court has already set forth the factual and

procedural history of this case, we need not repeat that history here. See Magistrini v.

One Hour Martinizing Dry Cleaning, et al., 180 F.Supp. 2d 584 (D. N.J. 2002). The

District Court has carefully and completely explained its reasons for excluding the

testimony of Appellant’s causation expert and admitting other testimony in its thoughtful

Memorandum Opinion and Order. The District Court did not abuse its discretion. It

properly conducted the Daubert hearing, applied the correct legal standard, and made no

clearly erroneous findings of fact. Given the District Court’s careful analysis, no purpose
4

will be served by this court undertaking a redundant discussion simply to reach the same

result. The District Court’s actions in selecting a technical advisor were also well within

its discretion.

Accordingly, we will affirm the decision of the District Court for

substantially the reasons set forth in the District Court’s thoughtful Memorandum

Opinion without further elaboration.
_________________________

TO THE CLERK:

Please file the foregoing opinion.

/s/ Richard L. Nygaard

Circuit Judge