Vincent Caravella v. Bayer AG
This text of 359 F. App'x 679 (Vincent Caravella v. Bayer AG) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Vincent Caravella appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his products-liability diversity action. Having carefully reviewed the 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 *680 judgment order and interpretation of state law). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
359 F. App'x 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vincent-caravella-v-bayer-ag-ca8-2010.