Once the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), definitively determined that non-resident plaintiffs can’t go suing non-resident defendants anywhere they want, attention turned to one of the primary types of forum-shopping gamesmanship that plaintiffs used to trap defendants in their preferred venues.
St. Louis –
In our continuing quest to share worthwhile educational opportunities with our loyal readers, we have a double shameless plug this weekend.
First, some of your favorite Drug and Device Law bloggers will be presenting at Reed Smith’s Philadelphia Life Sciences CLE Day on Thursday, November 2 at Reed Smith’s Philadelphia office. This is a free
With Bexis having originally conceived the preemption argument that became Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001), we are always on the lookout for ways in which plaintiffs attempt to circumvent Buckman’s result and thus to pursue private litigation over fraud on the FDA.
Plaintiffs love to claim fraud on
Your bloggers always do our best to alert our loyal readers to interesting, informative events. For those of you on the right side of the v and in the Greater Philadelphia area, the Drug & Device Defense Forum definitely makes the list.
This is a defense-only program for litigators and in-house counsel, and it counts
We’re quite familiar with people who say one thing, when they think that’s in their interest, and later when circumstances change, say something quite different. For example, as the late, great Molly Ivins pointed out in “Molly Ivins Can’t Say That, Can She?”, back during the energy crisis of the mid-to-late 1970s, folks down in
Several of your Reed Smith bloggers are busily making travel plans to be in New York December 4-6th. Are we planning major holiday shopping sprees? Are we off to do some picturesque ice skating around a large tree? Did we finally score Hamilton tickets?
Even better: We’re heading to ACI’s Drug and Medical Device Litigation
Back in 2013, Ramirez v. Medtronic Inc., 961 F. Supp.2d 977 (D. Ariz. 2013), made it to #9 on our worst cases of the year list – which is pretty good (actually, pretty bad) for a trial court decision. Purporting to apply Stengel v. Medtronic Inc., 704 F.3d 1224, 1228-31 (9th Cir. 2013)
We previously addressed the in pari delicto doctrine, whereby a plaintiff injured in the course of his or her criminal conduct cannot recover for those injuries. We specifically examined this doctrine’s most common application in prescription medical product liability litigation – where the plaintiff is injured as a consequence of his or her illegal use
We’ve never liked the “cy pres” concept in the context of class actions. We opposed it (not terribly successfully) when the ALI was considering it. We believe that taking money supposedly representing “damages” owed to class members and giving it to strangers is inherently substantive and thus not allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P.
We’ve generally been skeptical of state “Right To Try” statutes, for several reasons. First, to the extent that they try to circumvent the FDCA, they’re likely to be preempted. Second, drugmakers aren’t likely to distribute experimental drugs due to liability concerns, and these statutes don’t go far enough in removing that threat. Third, such statutes