We’ve had a longstanding interest in a topic, cross-jurisdictional class action tolling, the very name of which screams “esoteric”. You might think that it screams something worse than that, but hey, we’re guys who blog about drug and medical device litigation for fun – so we’re incapable of being insulted in that fashion.
Anyway, because
In class actions, class certification is the whole enchilada.
If the class is not certified, the plaintiffs go home. If the class is certified, the defendant has no choice but to settle.
There may be an exception or two that prove that general rule. But that’s the general rule. Period.
This means that defendants typically
We know, we know: The parties announced the Vioxx settlement on Friday, and it’s already Sunday, and we haven’t yet chimed in.
We have two excuses. First, Bexis’s tongue is tied. His firm is involved in the Vioxx litigation, so he can’t comment on the settlement. He, of course, played no role in drafting this
Here is Merck’s verbatim press release:
News Release
Media Contacts: Christopher Garland Investor
Contact: Graeme Bell
(908) 423-3461
(908) 423-5185
Kent Jarrell
(202) 230-1833
Merck Agreement to Resolve U.S. VIOXX(r) Product Liability Lawsuits Agreement Provides for $4.85 Billion Payment
WHITEHOUSE STATION, N.J., Nov. 9, 2007 – Merck & Co., Inc. today announced that it has
More preemption inside baseball this post. If you’re not a preemption wonk like us, try again tomorrow. If you are, you’ll get a present today. We got exercised and went out and did some original research.
We started this post out thinking mostly about Executive Order 13132. Why an eight year old executive order,
Last year, we collected all of the coordinated product liability proceedings created by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation from January 1, 2006, to the date of our post.
Today, we’re doing the same thing for 2007. We’re providing below the name of the MDL proceeding, the dates the motion for coordination was filed and
You’re stuck with Bexis this time. The recent Zandi v. Wyeth decisions that we’re going to discuss are too close for comfort to some matters that Herrmann’s defending – so he’s taken a pass on this one. You may now flee for the exits. Line forms on the right. No pushing.
We’ve remarked before that
Judge Pratter’s recent decision in Wawrzynek v. Statprobe, Inc., No. 05-1342, 2007 WL 3146792 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 25, 2007), recently caught our eye. The decision raises a host of interesting questions.
First, how the heck do you pronounce that plaintiff’s name?
But wait, there’s more!
In a nutshell, Statprobe is a contract research organization that
The Supreme Court briefing is now complete in Riegel v. Medtronic. For preemption wonks like us, that’s sort of like being a kid in a candy store – so we’ve taken a good look at what have to be the best and most state of the art defense preemption arguments around for those of
Pharmaceutical Executive interviewed one of your dynamic blogging duo about the implications of Warner-Lambert v. Kent and other preemption cases that are moving toward the Supreme Court. The interview appeared in the November issue, which just arrived at newsstands near you.