We posted (and again here) earlier this week about the New Jersey federal trial court decision in Thomson v. Novartis, which permitted defendants to remove seemingly non-removable diversity cases, so long as the cases were removed before plaintiff effected service on the in-state defendants.
We saw room for mischief there. (Indeed, folks on
Just when we were exhausted from thinking about product liability developments in the United States, we saw Wednesday’s Times of London. (Yeah — we read everything. Either that, or people send us stuff.)
A British hedge fund has hired a former litigator to invest $100 million to fund plaintiff’s-side litigation in Europe.
Egad.
Read and
On Monday, December 3, the action is in New Orleans. One half of your dynamic blogging duo — Herrmann, of Jones Day — will argue Ackermann in the Fifth Circuit, where the learned intermediary doctrine is the primary ground for affirming a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a drug manufacturer, but
We must have been a little asleep at the switch, because, several weeks ago, now, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the FDA, filed the government’s merits amicus brief in the Riegel v. Medtronic PMA express preemption case. We didn’t find out about it (and none of you told us – hey, we can whine
The Solicitor General, on behalf of the FDA, has recently filed amicus briefs in both the Riegel v. Medtronic and Warner-Lambert v. Kent (formerly Desiano) Supreme Court preemption cases. We’re doing a separate post on Riegel, but we did this one first because it’s more in the nature of “breaking news” – it
We’re not quite as outraged as you are, Eric Turkewitz, but we agree with you.
And, if we agree with a plaintiff’s lawyer, that’s news that’s fit to print.
(The issue has to do with a list of top legal blogs. Click through here only if that issue — a bit removed from drug and
Here’s the SG’s amicus brief in Riegel v. Medtronic, as it appears on the SG’s website. We’ll give you more analysis tomorrow, but take our word for it, if you like preemption like we do, it’s gooooooood.
We posted about Thomson v. Novartis on Sunday, noting that it was an odd case analyzing an unusual removal issue.
The Civil Procedure Prof Blog saw our post and agreed that the issue was unusual.
Apparently, however, the issue won’t be unusual for long. We received this note from a reader:
I read your post
The SG recently filed a pro-preemption amicus brief in Riegel v. Medtronic. We’ve read it, and it’s very nice – and useful in the drug field as well. However, our copy is missing a couple of pages at the front and back, so we’re still looking for a complete copy to post.
Also, the
When you’re scheduled to argue before the MDL Panel, the Panel sends a notice of “Procedures for Oral Argument.” The Procedures document says that the “Panel insists that counsel limit all oral argument to the appropriate criteria,” and cites In re “East of the Rockies” Concrete Pipe Antitrust Cases, 302 F. Supp. 244, 255-56