Several significant decisions have recently emerged from the In re Zantac MDL, No. 2924. We gave you a “bare bones” rundown of the first four of them right away. But now we’d like to discuss them in more detail.
We start with In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp.3d
We’re interested in artificial intelligence, particularly as it affects medical devices, but we don’t know all that much about it, and it’s yet to make much of an impact in our product liability sandbox. Fortunately, we know some folks who do stay informed on this topic, and that’s what today’s guest post is about. In
Today’s guest post is by the Reed Smith team of Shana E. Russo, Jennifer A. Eppensteiner, and Kathy I. Oviedo. It is about multi-district litigation (“MDL”) practice, and specifically, compares and contrasts various ways of selecting plaintiffs for possible bellwether trials. It also useful in providing links to orders entered in a
We praised Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, 2019 WL 4628264 (D. Kan. Sept. 23, 2019), when it was first decided, as “checking all the boxes.” Last week the Tenth Circuit affirmed, and believe us, it rechecked all those boxes.
In Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, ___ F.3d ___, 2021 WL 245246
Bexis just turned 65 (on 1/25/2021) – the classic retirement age. That’s an occasion to look back and evaluate what’s gone on over the course of an entire legal career. So how have we done, as defense lawyers, over the course of our entire careers, at our primary job – which is to prevail for
We’ve complained before about MDL “master” or “consolidated” complaints being used to deprive defendants of the ability to pursue their rights to seek dismissal on TwIqbal and other pleading-related grounds. In individual actions, defendants have the right to put the plaintiffs’ pleadings to the test required by Rules 8 and 12. That has not necessarily
As 2020 ended, our loyal readers joined us in reviewing our worst decisions of the past year – true superspreaders of litigation against our clients – and our best decisions of the past year, which we termed “tort pandemic countermeasures.”
As we do each year, we’re pleased to announce that four of your bloggers
Albert Einstein supposedly said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” He may not have, but the point is well taken. We often think the same thing – particularly about plaintiffs that sue manufacturers of FDA premarket-approved (“PMA”) medical devices with vague, boilerplate complaints. Haven’t they heard about
Here’s another quasi-guest post by Reed Smith’s blogger-in-training Dean Balaes. This one provides a critique of the scary Park doctrine, aptly described here as “Frankenstein’s Monster,” that allows imposition of criminal liability on corporate officers for illegality they didn’t even know about.
**********
In 1816, Mary Shelley and Lord Byron entered into a wager to
We recently came across the law review article, E. Lindenfeld, “Clear Evidence Clarified,” 75 Food & Drug L.J. 346 (2020). Since it cited and critiqued a number of our blogposts, we thought it was appropriate to reply.
Our initial impression is that the Lindenfeld article is comparatively reasonable – that is, compared to some prior