Although even the academic critics of Twombly/Iqbal have agreed with us that vague “you violated the FDCA” pleadings should not survive a motion to dismiss, apparently there are still lawyers on the other side who think they should be able to get away with violation claims that do not identify what statute/rule/regulation was
New Jersey Vioxx plaintiffs weren’t going to let a little thing like losing in the New Jersey Supreme Court keep them from trying to certify their nationwide consumer fraud class action. But yesterday, Judge Higbee, the trial judge assigned the Vioxx mass tort in New Jersey, saw it differently. She denied class certification for a
Back in January, we put up a short post noting the filing of a petition for extraordinary (“King’s Bench”) review in the case of Commonwealth v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., No 0108002818 (Pa. C.P. Phila. Co.). It’s a case involving alleged off-label promotion of Risperdal, a widely prescribed “atypical” anti-psychotic medication. We posted a copy
A couple of brief notes on new decisions:
(1) In Accutane litigation, plaintiff’s expert Ronald Fogel is now 0-2 under Daubert. The latest opinion excluding his testimony does so because his opinions overreached the medical literature on which they were based. The holding:
Both [the articles], in their review of the existing literature, case
Richard Epstein (Chicago and NYU) has this piece — arguing that Congress should maintain preemption in the context of PMA-approved medical devices and extend similar protection to prescription drugs — at Forbes.com.
We keep score here.
We keep the Drug/Vaccine Preemption Scorecard, collecting cases addressing preemption in the context of prescription drugs.
We keep the Device Preemption Scorecard, tracking device preemption cases since Riegel.
We keep the Cross-Jurisdictional Class Action Tolling Scorecard, tracking . . . well, if you understand what those words mean,
We just ran across Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. v. Amersham Health, Inc., ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2009 WL 1743699 (D.N.J. June 30, 2009). Yeah, we know, it’s over a month old — ancient by blawg standards. In our defense, all we can say is that it’s a Lanham Act case, and we pay more attention
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and Federal Judicial Center have recently published two booklets for use by judges and clerks handling MDL cases. We provide the titles of the booklets, and links to where the booklets are available free of charge at the FJC website, below:
“Ten Steps to Better Case Management: A
Sensible bloggers put titles on their posts that attract attention (and thus links from others in the blogosphere).
Not us!
This is an interesting post about a recent study undertaken by some of the empirical folks at the Federal Judicial Center (and others) about the activities of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. So what