Gary Burke v. Bayer AG

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: November 13, 2009
• Docket: 08-3303
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 08-3303 ___________

In re: Baycol Products Litigation, * * -------------------------------------- * * Gary Burke and Joyce R. Burke, * * Appellants, * * Mary Eunice Brewer; James B. * Brewer; Kathy Gembarowicz; Alma * Lee Harmon; Monica A. Jordan, * * Plaintiffs, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Bayer AG; Bayer Corporation; * GlaxoSmithKline PLC, individually * [UNPUBLISHED] and as successor in interest to * SmithKline Beecham PLC and * Smith Kline Beecham Corporation, * * Appellees. * ___________

Submitted: November 4, 2009 Filed: November 13, 2009 ___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM.

Gary and Joyce Burke appeal the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in their diversity products-liability action. Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s exclusion of the opinion of the Burkes’ expert. See Bland v. Verizon Wireless, LLC, 538 F.3d 893, 896 (8th Cir. 2008). We also agree with the district court’s determination that, without such an opinion, there were no trialworthy issues on the Burkes’ state-law claims. 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. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

-2-