Court Opinion

ID: 9913781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 19:00:38.641724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:33.699577
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20614       Document: 00517015334             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/28/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit

                                    ____________                                    FILED
                                                                            December 28, 2023
                                     No. 22-20614                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                   Summary Calendar                                 Clerk
                                   ____________

   Beverly Barnett,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                           versus

   Kia Motors America, Incorporated,

                                              Defendant—Appellee.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:21-CV-1591
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Beverly Barnett moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
   on appeal from the dismissal of her product liability action against Kia Motors
   America, Inc. (Kia), in which she alleged that she was injured when her Kia’s
   seatbelt and airbag malfunctioned during a collision. The district court

          _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-20614      Document: 00517015334           Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/28/2023

                                     No. 22-20614

   granted summary judgment for Kia because Barnett failed to designate an
   expert witness on product liability. Texas law, which governs the substance
   of Barnett’s suit, “require[s] expert testimony and objective proof to support
   a jury finding that a product defect caused the plaintiff’s condition.” Gharda
   USA, Inc. v. Control Sols., Inc., 464 S.W.3d 338, 348 (Tex. 2015).
          To proceed IFP on appeal, Barnett must demonstrate both financial
   eligibility and the existence of a nonfrivolous appellate issue. 28 U.S.C.
   § 1915(a)(1); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). An issue is
   nonfrivolous if it “involves legal points arguable on their merits.” Howard v.
   King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). We may dismiss a frivolous appeal sua sponte. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
          We review a summary judgment de novo, using the same standard as
   that employed by the district court. McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571
   (5th Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that
   there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
   to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
          Barnett neither identifies an error in the district court’s construal or
   application of Texas law requiring expert testimony to support a product
   liability claim nor disputes the finding that she failed to offer such a witness.
   See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th
   Cir. 1987). Her argument that her own pleaded facts alone suffice to
   overcome summary judgment is baseless in light of Gharda. And insofar as
   Barnett challenges the holding in Gharda, that is a matter for the Texas
   courts. Absent the requisite expert testimony, there can be no genuine
   factual dispute as to whether any product defect caused Barnett’s injuries,
   and Kia is accordingly entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district
   court’s grant of summary judgment was indisputably proper. See McFaul,

                                          2
Case: 22-20614   Document: 00517015334        Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/28/2023

                               No. 22-20614

   684 F.3d at 571. Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is
   DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.

                                    3