The orders denying untimely, post-remand attempts to amend complaints in the Taxotere litigation are piling up, and it doesn’t get old.  We recently reported on one such denial in the Northern District of California.  In recent weeks, district courts in New York, North Carolina, and Tennessee (among others) have joined in.  Today we report on three of those decisions.Continue Reading More Taxotere Remand Courts Deny Untimely Amendments

McMillian v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44783 (March 13, 2024), is another example where a court shot down a belated, post-remand attempt by a Taxotere plaintiff to change the allegations of her complaint. You might think that we will mimic some of our earlier posts about remand courts fixing a mess

It is time, once again, to talk about Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) case management.  But this time there will be more gratitude than grousing.

We wince when we hear judges talk about managing litigation.  Such management seems to be about many things (mostly about forcing settlement), and not much about deciding legal issues, and definitely not

We’ve blogged before about the plaintiffs’ self-defeating “injury” definition in the Taxotere mass tort litigation.  Specifically, plaintiffs have defined their injury as being hair loss that persists more than six months after their cessation of treatment with the defendant’s cancer chemotherapy drug.  But, because this litigation (like most product liability MDLs) only exists because of lawyer solicitation, such solicitation dredges up many plaintiffs who sat on their hands for much longer than the aforesaid six month period.  Having a date certain as to when the injury exists greatly assists any defendant in winning dismissal of these stale claims on statute of limitations grounds.

That’s not just true in the Taxotere MDLContinue Reading Taxotere Timing Troubles Persistently Plague Plaintiffs