IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30831

Summary Calendar

SANDRA C. UNDERWOOD; CARNEL JOSEPH; DARNELL JOSEPH; 

GREGORY JOSEPH; LASHAWN JOSEPH, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

GENERAL MOTORS, L.L.C., 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:14-CV-188

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The appellants filed this lawsuit against GM under Louisiana state law, 

alleging that a design or composition defect in a GM-made vehicle caused an 

accident that resulted in the death of the appellants’ parents. The district 

court granted GM’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the appellants

had not established a genuine issue of material fact for the necessary elements 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30831 Document: 00513451721 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2016
No. 15-30831

2

of Louisiana’s Products Liability Act. For the reasons discussed below, we 

affirm.

BACKGROUND

On April 7, 2012, George and Jeanette Joseph were passengers in a 2006 

Saturn Vue. The driver of the vehicle claims that while he was driving down 

the highway, the vehicle caught fire, causing him to veer off the highway and 

hit the guardrail. George and Jeanette died as a result of the injuries sustained 

in the accident. The appellants, George and Jeanette’s children, initially filed 

suit in Louisiana state court against the State of Louisiana, the driver of the 

vehicle, the driver’s insurance company, and GM. The state court dismissed 

the claims against the State, and the appellants settled their claims against 

the driver and his insurance company. GM then removed the case to federal 

court based on diversity jurisdiction.

The driver of the vehicle also filed a separate suit in state court against 

GM and the State of Louisiana. That suit is ongoing. The driver and the 

appellants in this case agreed to share discovery and expert witnesses in their 

respective claims against GM.

In June 2014, the federal district court entered a scheduling order,

according to which the appellants were to identify expert witnesses by 

November 3, 2014, and produce expert reports by January 15, 2015. The 

appellants did not identify any expert witnesses or produce any expert reports 

until April 2015, when they filed a motion to reset deadlines for expert 

disclosure (motion to reset deadlines). In their motion, the appellants claimed 

that they were unable to gain access to the vehicle involved in the accident 

until January 16, 2015, because the driver was in possession of the vehicle and 

the state court discovery proceedings were progressing at a slower pace. In 

May 2015, a magistrate judge denied the appellants’ motion to reset deadlines

because he found that they did not show good cause for failing to comply with 

 Case: 15-30831 Document: 00513451721 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2016
No. 15-30831

3

the scheduling order and because resetting the relevant deadlines would have 

required cancelling every remaining deadline. The appellants did not object to 

the magistrate judge’s denial of their motion to reset deadlines before the 

district court.

Shortly thereafter, GM moved for summary judgment. In their 

opposition to summary judgment, the appellants relied primarily on expert 

testimony. GM then successfully moved to strike the affidavit and curriculum 

vitae of the appellants’ expert in light of the appellants’ failure to comply with 

the scheduling order. While GM’s motion for summary judgment was still 

pending, the appellants moved for an extension of time to file the affidavit and 

curriculum vitae of the same expert. In August 2015, The district court denied 

this motion.

On September 17, 2015, the district court granted GM’s motion for 

summary judgment. The appellants filed a timely notice of appeal, challenging 

the district court’s grant of summary judgment. In their briefs on appeal, 

however, the appellants also challenge the magistrate judge’s denial of their 

motion to reset deadlines and the district court’s failure to provide them with 

additional time to gather information to oppose the motion for summary 

judgment.

DISCUSSION

The appellants argue that the magistrate judge erred in denying their 

motion to reset deadlines, and, in the same vein, they argue the district court 

erred in denying an extension of time for discovery. We lack jurisdiction to 

consider these challenges. An appealing party must specify the order from 

which it is appealing in the notice of appeal, and this court’s jurisdiction is 

limited to the orders identified in the Notice of Appeal. See FED. R. APP. P.

3(c)(1)(B); Warfield v. Fid. & Deposit Co., 904 F.2d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 1990). 

Although notices of appeals are liberally construed, our jurisdiction only 

 Case: 15-30831 Document: 00513451721 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2016
No. 15-30831

4

extends to unmentioned rulings where the appellants’ intent to appeal them is 

apparent and there is no prejudice to the opposing party. In re Hinsley, 201 

F.3d 638, 641 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Here, the appellants’ notice of appeal specifically designated only the 

district court’s September 17, 2015, order granting summary judgment for 

appeal, and it reveals no implied challenge to the magistrate judge’s May 2015 

ruling on their motion to reset deadlines or the district court’s August 2015 

ruling on their motion for an extension of time. These unmentioned orders 

therefore fall outside the scope of the appellants’ notice of appeal, and we lack 

jurisdiction to review them. 

Next, the appellants argue that the district court erred in granting GM’s 

motion for summary judgment. They claim the driver’s testimony that the 

vehicle caught fire before hitting the guardrail contradicts GM’s experts’

opinions that the fire erupted after the impact with the guardrail and therefore 

creates a genuine issue of material fact. We find this unpersuasive.

“This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de 

novo, applying the same standards as the district court.” EEOC v. WC&M 

Enters., Inc., 496 F.3d 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2007). Therefore, this court “must 

view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all 

reasonable inferences in its favor.” Id. Summary judgment is appropriate if 

“[t]he moving party [shows] that if the evidentiary material of record were 

reduced to admissible evidence in court, it would be insufficient to permit the 

nonmoving party to carry its burden.” Beck v. Texas State Bd. of Dental 

Examiners, 204 F.3d 629, 633 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 

317, 327 (1986)). If the moving party carries its summary judgment burden, 

the non-moving party must present specific evidence of a genuine issue for 

trial. Id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)).

 Case: 15-30831 Document: 00513451721 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/05/2016
No. 15-30831

5

To bring a successful products liability claim under Louisiana law for 

either a composition defect or a design defect, the appellants must establish 

that (1) the vehicle was unreasonably dangerous due to a composition defect or 

a design defect; (2) the composition defect or design defect caused the plaintiffs’ 

damages; and (3) the composition defect or design defect existed when the 

vehicle left GM’s control. LA. REV. STAT. § 9:2800.54. To show that a product 

is unreasonably dangerous due to a composition defect, a plaintiff must 

establish that “the product deviated in a material way from the manufacturer’s 

specifications or performance standards for the product.” Id. § 9:2800.55. And 

to show that a product is unreasonably dangerous due to a design defect, the 

plaintiff must show that an alternative design could have prevented the 

claimed damages and that the alternative design could be feasibly 

implemented. Id. § 9:2800.56.

Here, the appellants failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact 

regarding a defect in composition because they did not show that the vehicle 

“deviated in a material way from the manufacturer’s specifications or 

performance standards for the product.” Id. § 9:2800.55. They presented no 

evidence establishing GM’s specifications or performance standards or how the 

Saturn Vue in this case differed from them. The appellants also failed to 

establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding a design defect because 

they did not present evidence of an alternative, feasible design. Id. § 9:2800.56. 

Further, appellants presented no evidence that any alleged composition or 

design defect existed when the vehicle left GM’s control. Id. § 9:2800.54. The 

appellants assert that the driver’s testimony that the fire occurred before the 

accident creates a genuine issue of material fact, yet the timing of the fire does 

not, in itself, establish a composition or design defect or show that any such 

defect existed when it left GM’s control.

 Case: 15-30831 Document: 00513451721 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/05/2016
No. 15-30831

6

Because the appellants failed to establish a genuine dispute as to 

material facts, the district court properly granted GM’s motion for summary 

judgment. 

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-30831 Document: 00513451721 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/05/2016