We often write about preemption here, but we suffered an odd type of preemption yesterday.
Sometimes we pre-write these blog posts. If we’re facing a hectic week, we’ll write something on Sunday and then post it on Tuesday, to give repeat visitors fresh content throughout the week. This Sunday, we cleverly pre-wrote a blog post
We’ve been hearing distant thunder for a long time. One of us wrote nearly two years ago about the possibility that American-style class action litigation might soon rear its ugly head in Europe. See Mark Herrmann and Richard Elks, “Jumping the Pond,” Pharmaceutical Executive (Sept. 2005). But we were more than a little spooked when
We were reading recent cases (yeah, we do other things, too) and part of the discussion of removal in In re Aredia & Zometa Products Liability Litigation, 2007 WL 649266 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 27, 2007), caught our eye. We’re not talking about the failure of so-called “complete preemption.” Id. at *3-4. That lost and
We talk like product liability lawyers, but we can spell “10b-5.” Trust us.
We even read securities cases every once in a while. Here’s one we recommend to readers of this blog who are fighting some types of pharmaceutical or medical device class actions in Texas state courts: Citizens Insurance Company of America v. Daccach
One of us had an eighth grade basketball coach who promised that, if we played on his team, we’d “eat basketball, sleep basketball, dream basketball!” (Yeah — he was nuts.)
You might think that we’re that way about the MDL process and Lexecon. But we promise — we don’t eat Lexecon, sleep Lexecon
If you haven’t yet flipped through the March 2007 issue of the ABA Journal, you’ve missed a treat (if we do say so ourselves).
The article titled “Grr, Hrmph & Grumble LLP,” on page 22, simply shouldn’t be missed.
Yes, now that you ask — mighty proud.
We’ve already posted a number of items about Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057 (2007), but like a kids in a candy store, we’re still looking at the case to try to figure out all the things that defendants might be able to do with it. We closed our last post on
For thirty years, MDL transferee judges engaged in the practice of “self-transfer.” A judge would preside over a coordinated MDL proceeding and then, after concluding the pretrial portion of the proceedings, would transfer the cases pending in the MDL to himself for trial. Voila! Although the MDL statute vested the judge with jurisdiction only over
We’re not slow readers. Really.
We’re just busy, and we just now got around to Richard Epstein’s counterpoint to Nagareda in the first issue of the Journal of Tort Law. Richard Epstein, “Why the FDA Must Preempt Tort Litigation: A Critique of Chevron Deference and a Response to Richard Nagareda,” 1 J. Tort Law
We really don’t see the purpose in a separate cause of action for breach of implied warranty in a case involving a prescription medical product. Warranty claims are for ham sandwiches and lawn chairs, where the term “merchantable” has some coherent meaning. Prescription medical products are just that – available only by a physician’s prescription.