Matthew Lindner v. Evenflo Company , 585 F. App'x 525 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MATTHEW R. LINDNER, individually, No. 12-15470
as surviving parent and legal heir of
Camila Lynete Lindner, a deceased minor D.C. No. 2:10-CV-00051-LDG-
and JOSEPH L. BENSON, II, Esquire, as VCF
guardian ad litem for Paulina Granados-
Martinez,
MEMORANDUM*
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation; et al.,
Defendants,
And
EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Lloyd D. George, Senior District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Argued and Submitted September 11, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: BEA, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Matthew Lindner and Joseph Benson (collectively “Lindner”) brought this
Nevada product defect action against Evenflo Company individually and on behalf
of members of the Lindner family who were injured in a vehicle rollover accident
in Mexico. During that accident, baby Camila Lindner was ejected from the
vehicle and killed while strapped into an Evenflo car seat. The district court
granted Evenflo’s motion to exclude the testimony of Lindner’s experts on design
defect and causation, and granted summary judgment in favor of Evenflo. We
reverse on both grounds.
1. We review the admission of expert testimony under Federal Rule of
Evidence 702 for abuse of discretion. Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
89 F.3d 594, 596 (9th Cir. 1996). The district judge’s order did not disqualify
plaintiff expert Dr. Hoffman because he was unqualified or because he used
unreliable, unscientific methodology, as Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the
Daubert test require. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579,
589-92 (1993). Rather, the district court determined that there was insufficient
2
evidence to support Dr. Hoffman’s opinion on causation, as Dr. Hoffman had
“conceded the lack of any empirical evidence indicating that the release handle
would hit the front seat.” This conclusion is incorrect because, as Dr. Hoffman
testified during his deposition, his opinion was based on his observation of the
empirical evidence: “the release handle of that [child car] seat” was “exposed to
the passenger front seat,” and the “passenger front seat. . . .was also deformed and
slightly inclined.” Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in finding that
Hoffman’s causation theory was insufficiently grounded in evidence.
2. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. MetroPCS Inc. v.
City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 2005). The district
court’s order does not impugn Dr. Hoffman’s opinion that the car seat was
defective because its release handle was prone to accidental release. If this
defective release handle was activated by objects in the car during the rollover and
caused Camila’s injuries, as Lindner’s other experts opined, that would be
sufficient to create a triable issue of fact in this case, since the consumer
expectation test is part of Nevada products liability law. Primiano v. Cook, 598
F.3d 558, 567 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, the district court erred in granting summary
judgment.
3
The district court’s order granting summary judgment to Evenflo Company
is REVERSED.
4
FILED
Lindner v. Evenflo, No. 12-15470 OCT 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
IKUTA, Circuit Judge, specially concurring: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
The district court ruled, in effect, that Dr. Hoffman’s opinion on causation
would not “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
issue,” and was not “based on sufficient facts or data.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Because
the record shows that no evidence supported Dr. Hoffman’s opinion that the
release handle (as opposed to the carrier handle) of the child car seat released
because it hit the back of the front seat, the district court’s ruling was not “illogical,
implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the
record.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009).
Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Hoffman’s
causation opinion. Nevertheless, even excluding this opinion, there was sufficient
evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding design defect and
causation. Therefore I concur in the result.