Herrmann will be speaking next week at a webinar about multidistrict litigation and its state court analogues. As a result, we can offer readers of this blog a discount on the registration price for the program.
The webinar will begin at 1 p.m. Eastern on Thursday, October 29, and will last for roughly 90 minutes.
Bexis went gallivanting off to California last week to (among other things) speak to the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. (“PLAC”) about the joys of pleading in the post-Twombly/Iqbal era. That meant that he had to update the Twombly/Iqbal research that previously appeared here. Being the lazy pedants that
It happened in a car case, but the same thing could just as easily have occurred in litigation involving drugs or devices.
The plaintiff filed a snap motion under a peculiar Florida statute (§69.081) to have a product declared a “public hazard” and not incidentally to avoid a federal court protective order. In a kangaroo-court
It’s annoying – having your opponent on a major appeal not only preserve specific issues, but go on to add to its notice of appeal some boilerplate purporting to “incorporate by reference” who knows how what or how many issues allegedly raised by anybody at any stage of the litigation. To us, that sort of
Thanks to a newspaper reporter of all people for this tip – John Ellement of the Boston Globe. The case involved, Donovan v. Philip Morris (go here and click on, first, “slip opinions” and then “Supreme Judicial Court” and finally “opinions”), is a cigarette case, and since both of our firms represent tobacco companies we’re
Occasionally, one of our blog posts is a two-fer: It addresses simultaneously two topics that we care about.
Today’s post is an oh-fer: It addresses two topics, neither of which matters to us.
(The “us” is actually a “royal us” today. Since this post does not speak to drug or device law, Bexis bowed out
We’re thinking again about Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009).
Today’s thought was prompted by the recent decision granting without prejudice a motion to dismiss in Wright v. General Mills, No. 08cv1532 L(NLS), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90576 (S.D.Cal. Sept. 30, 2009). Russell
The Alabama Attorney General has aggressively pursued drug companies for allegedly fraudulently manipulating the prices the state paid for drugs under Medicaid. Sixteen companies agreed to settle those claims; three companies took cases to trial — and lost a total of nearly $300 million.
We’ve just received a copy of the opinion, courtesy of one
We’ve said before (in commenting on the ALI’s aggregate litigation principles) that we don’t like the “cy pres” concept. For one thing, it makes us look dumb. We’re not even sure how the blasted term’s supposed to be pronounced. If you ask three lawyers, you’re likely to get four possible pronunciations, from “sigh pray” to
It’s only in a statement concurring in a denial of certiorari, but three justices of the Supreme Court – including Justice Kennedy (the prime swing justice on the Court), who wrote it, and new Justice Sotomayor, expressed some interesting thoughts on Due Process the other day. See DTD Enterprises, Inc. v. Wells, ___ S.