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
When Does Offensive Non-Mutual Collateral Estoppel Apply in MDLs?
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
Unhappy Elephant: New York’s Highest Court Holds that Animals Are Not Entitled to Writs of Habeas Corpus
Today we report on a case between Happy, an elephant, and the Bronx Zoo, where Happy has been held captive for the past 45 years. Represented by an animal-rights group, Happy filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that her captivity is unlawful and that she should be allowed to go to
Washington Court of Appeals: Registering to Do Business Does Not Constitute Consent to Personal Jurisdiction
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,
No Personal Jurisdiction Over Component Supplier Under New York’s Long-Arm Statute
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
510(k) Devices, Compliance Presumptions, and the Long Shadow of Lohr
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
Applying the Helpful but Problematic New Jersey Statute Creating a Rebuttable Compliance Presumption, the Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of a Failure-to-Warn Claim
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
Twombly and Iqbal Taken Seriously: Express-Preemption Dismissal
Defendants love and plaintiffs hate Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), which together stand for the proposition that to state a claim and avoid dismissal a plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly suggest that the defendant is liable. Today’s case, Poozhikala v.
Leave Ivermectin to Horses and Parasites
Federal Law Expressly Preempts State-Law Misbranding Claims Predicated on Labeling Statements Approved By A Federal Agency
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