Sometimes (not that often) we run across a decision that so blatantly misses controlling precedent that we have to wonder who was asleep at the switch, the court or counsel. The recent decision, Dorsett v. Sandoz, Inc., 2009 WL 3633874 (C.D.Cal. Oct 28, 2009), is one of those.
We first read Dorsett because it
We love it when our readers share good ideas with us. For one thing, it saves us the trouble of having to think up ideas ourselves. Today we’re sharing a couple of those with you.
Ted Heise, who’s at Cook Medical, was reading our post on methods of proving up FDA-related evidence. He took
By now, everyone but the newest of our readers knows this drill. The client gets sued in state court. The action would be removable, because there’s diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and defendants (that is, they live in different states) except there’s an “in-state” defendant that prevents removal because the plaintiff sued that defendant in
As we mentioned last week, we were invited to participate in a debate about whether Congress should act to overrule the pleading standard enunciated in Twombly and Iqbal. That debate’s being hosted by the University of Pennsylvania Law Review’s online supplement, PENNumbra.
We, predictably, thought Congress should stay out of this.
We were accused — okay, okay; we were guilty — of being an “all preemption, all the time” blog in the days leading up to the Supreme Court’s decision in Wyeth v. Levine.
But those halcyon days are behind us.
We’re now half preemption, half the time.
It’s that time!
Here are two recent
We just stumbled across Mohr v. Targeted Genetics, No. 09-3170, 2009 LEXIS 107761 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2009), and thought we’d share that small Iqbal win.
Jolee Mohr was enrolled in a clinical trial for an investigational gene therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. While Mohr was in the trial, her treating physician prescribed Abbott’s rheumatoid arthritis
We don’t routinely follow qui tam litigation involving our clients. It’s not something that we, personally, defend against. It’s not our sandbox; qui tam trolls are the responsibility of other defense counsel.
But we are interested in off-label use. Thus Hopper v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, No. 08-15810, slip op. (11th Cir. Dec. 4, 2009), caught
We tried to think of a great issue to explore today – and struck out. So instead we’ll discuss this and that – various things that we’re aware of, but that we haven’t gotten around to mentioning.
The top of the agenda, of course, is a review of Judge
Herrmann’s off on a solo lark again.
He looked at the ABA Journal’s list of the “Top 100” legal blogs of 2009 to see how many blogs affiliated with big firms — the AmLaw 200 — were on the list.
How many do you suppose there were?
Two.
The first is SCOTUS Blog — but
This just in – Eli Lilly has received summary judgment against the Mississippi Attorney General’s consumer fraud lawsuit in all respects – except one. The court left the state’s claim based on the difference between the price paid for Zyprexa and the value received by the State alive, but largely because that issue is currently