Vincent Caravella v. Bayer AG, et al, No. 08-3852 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - products liability. Defendants' summary judgment affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
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 Bayer AG; Bayer Corporation; * Smithkline Beecham Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] doing business as GlaxoSmithKline, * * Appellees.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 1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. 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. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
