UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
Summary Calendar
No. 01-30407
_______________________
GARRETT W. CIRESI; STEPHANIE H. CIRESI,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
DAIMLER/CHRYSLER CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(00-CV-1269-F)
_________________________________________________________________
September 19, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellants brought this products liability action against
Appellee DaimlerChrysler (Chrysler) for damages resulting from
injuries to Mr. Ciresi allegedly caused by a defective air bag.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
Holding that Appellants had presented no evidence of the crucial
element of causation in their cause of action, the district court
granted Chrysler’s motion for summary judgment. Contrary to
Appellants’ assertions on appeal, the district court did not err.
Chrysler presented undisputed testimony that something other than
the air bag (assuming arguendo that the air bag was indeed
defective) could have caused Mr. Ciresi’s injuries. Appellants
presented no evidence that conflicts with this testimony. There
was thus no issue of material fact as to causation that could
preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of Chrysler.
Appellants’ attempt to fill the evidentiary gap by relying on the
res ipsa loquitur doctrine fails for the reason stated by the
district court.
Appellants object to various decisions made by the
district judge and the magistrate judge in managing the case: the
denial of a tardily filed motion for leave to amend the complaint
by adding a seemingly superfluous defendant; the denial of an
untimely motion to extend the deadline for submitting expert
witness testimony; and the striking of evidentiary submissions made
in violation of that deadline. We perceive no abuse of discretion
in any of these decisions. Even if we thought otherwise, we do not
see how it could make a difference to the disposition of Chrysler’s
summary judgment motion.
AFFIRMED.
2