Photo of Andrew Tauber

Two weeks ago we reported on a case that refused to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel, the doctrine that prevents a defendant from relitigating an issue that it lost in earlier litigation against a different plaintiff. Although we weren’t impressed by that decision’s analysis, its outcome was one we could endorse. Today we report on

Today’s post is for procedure geeks, especially those who litigate MDLs.

Offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel prevents a defendant from relitigating an issue that it lost in earlier litigation against a different plaintiff.

The issue is when offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel applies to a case that was part of an MDL. More specifically, the issue is

As we have previously observed, limits on personal jurisdiction matter because the outcome of litigation is heavily influenced by where a case is filed. Since the Supreme Court confirmed the narrow confines of general jurisdiction in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011), and Daimler AG v. Bauman,

We’re pragmatic geeks. That means we love personal-jurisdiction issues. This year alone we’ve reported on personal-jurisdiction cases here, here, and here. And then yesterday we did it again. Although the decision we discussed yesterday, English v. Avon Products, Inc., — N.Y.S.3d —-, 2022 WL 1787160 (N.Y. App. 2022), was unfortunate in

Several weeks ago, we reported on Greisberg v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2022 WL 1261318 (3d Cir. 2022), in which the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of a failure-to-warn claim because the plaintiff had failed to allege facts sufficient to overcome New Jersey’s “compliance presumption,” a statutory presumption (adopted by numerous states) under which a medical

A relatively short post about Greisberg v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2022 WL 1261318 (3d Cir. 2022), a short decision that came out the right way, but did so based on a problematic statute that creates a rebuttal presumption that warning labels approved by the FDA are adequate as a matter of state law.

The

Today we report on Thornton v. Tyson Foods, Inc., — F.4th —-, 2022 WL 727628 (10th Cir. 2022)—a favorable express-preemption decision under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 601–695, that is directly applicable to medical-device cases. Although decided under a different statute, Thornton makes clear that the FDCA bars state-law claims