Photo of John Sullivan

More than ten years since the Supreme Court wrote Twombly and Iqbal, the power of those two decisions remains strong enough to roll over almost any claims that dare to show up without supporting facts. The plaintiff in Shapiro v. NuVasive, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191373, at *4-5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 5,

Choice of law analyses are confounding. They involve multi-factor tests and come with histories of decisional law that rarely apply those factors consistently. When you lower the microscope on the details and struggle to find a reliable uniformity, it just isn’t there. It begins to seem as if the only real conclusion to be reached

What’s done is done. No turning back. You can’t go home. Unreviewable play. No breakfast balls. All simple phrases, all meaning the same thing—finality.

The law certainly knows something about finality. That was made clear once again in Juday v. Merck & Co. (In re Zostavax (Zoster Vaccine Live) Prods. Liab. Litig.), 2018 U.S.

This post comes from the Cozen O’Connor side of the blog.

Today’s story is about a class action, one in which the defendant was sued for labeling its product “No Sugar Added” even though everyone involved, including the plaintiff, understood from the very start that no sugar had been added to the defendant’s product.