Sensible bloggers put titles on their posts that attract attention (and thus links from others in the blogosphere).
Not us!
This is an interesting post about a recent study undertaken by some of the empirical folks at the Federal Judicial Center (and others) about the activities of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. So what
Earlier in the week we got tagged by Amlaw for one of our posts about how boilerplate design and manufacturing defect claims recently got dismissed under Twombly/Iqbal.
That’s cool. Amlaw drives a lot of traffic to little blogs like ours when it says “you’re it.”
But we were a little surprised by
This article in today’s Washington Post, by Jeff Rosen and Jay Lefkowitz, says that President Obama’s May 20 memorandum on preemption “relied on a rationale that makes no sense and is not required by law.”
(Hat tip to Point of Law.)
C’mon, guys. We publish this blog for a reason. Pay attention.
We’ve explained over and over again that plaintiffs often cannot pursue alleged violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act under the rubric of negligence per se where “the legislature does not intend for a statute to be privately enforced.”
In Pantages
A tip of the cyberhat to Ed Gerecke, Penelope Dixon, and Dave Walz and of Carlton Fields for passing along news of another preemption win, in Wolicki-Gables v. Arrow International, Inc., ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2009 WL 2190069, slip op. (M.D. Fla. July 22, 2009). That’s a quick decision to publish by
We love Iqbal:
“sitaaro.n se aage jahaa.N aur bhii hai.n
abhii ishq ke imtihaa.N aur bhii hai.n“
That is, of course, from Sir Muhammed Iqbal‘s classic poem, “Ahead of the Stars.”
(If only we spoke Urdu, we’d probably appreciate it a little more.)
(We told you this blogging was good
We don’t deal with FDA regulatory matters that often, and with the criminal side even less, but the recent decision out of Colorado in U.S. v. Bader, slip opinion here, was too juicy to ignore.
It points out a serious flaw in the FDA’s regulatory scheme that we think needs a formal regulatory
Our last preemption-related post was more than three weeks ago, on July 2. Can you believe it? What ever happened to “all preemption, all the time,” as we used to be called?
The Supreme Court decided all of its pending cases, that’s what. Device preemption is pretty much settled, unless Congress upsets the applecart. Drug
Plaintiffs say that Pfizer’s anti-epileptic drug, Neurontin, causes people to commit suicide.
We say that it makes you scratch your head.
The first Neurontin-suicide case went to trial earlier this week. It sounded like a tough case for plaintiff: The decedent, who had taken Neurontin and then committed suicide, had a history of mental health
We’ve figured out how to settle a pending case!
And we’ll share our solution at the end of this post!
Read on for the details.
In Hunt v. DePuy Orthopaedics, No. 03-900 (RWR), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61644 (D.D.C. July 20, 2009), Martha Hunt, a citizen of Maryland, underwent hip replacement surgery with a DePuy