So learned plaintiff in United States ex rel. Plaintiff v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174825 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 26, 2024), when the court granted defendant’s two motions to compel obviously relevant documents and information.
Plaintiff relator and intervening plaintiff, the State of Washington, assert False Claims Act (“FCA”) claims against the
Plaintiffs naming local sales representatives—or doctors, or pharmacies, or distributors, or retailers—as defendants to try to destroy diversity and avoid federal court is nothing new. Unfortunately, defendants bear a “heavy burden” proving fraudulently joinder. In fact, our last post on the topic was in February 2023, demonstrating that successes on this issue are few
In golf, a mulligan is when a golfer hits a second shot if they’re not satisfied with their first shot. We’ve used the term before to refer to the second chances given to plaintiffs to re-plead their claims. So, we decided to look up the origin of the term and found conflicting stories. The most
Today’s guest post is from our Dechert LLP colleagues Doug Fleming and Noah Becker. They examine the recently proposed Litigation Transparency Act. As always our guest bloggers deserve all of the credit (and any of the blame) for their efforts.
*****************************
Consider the following scenario — it’s not an unusual one in this brave
Adding to the growing favorable precedent concerning state human tissue shield statutes is Heitman v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc., 2024 WL 4019318 (N.D. Fla. Jul. 22, 2024).
The plaintiff alleged that he was infected with tuberculosis from an unfortunately contaminated human tissue allograft that was implanted in his spine during surgery. The plaintiff alleged
Speaking of the United States’ newly ratified Constitution, Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1789: “in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” We would like to add to this list another certainty—summary judgment in a drug case without expert proof of general causation. So, when the court excluded all of
If you are of a certain age and are presented with a trio of items, we bet you sometimes add “Oh My” to the end of the list, as in Lions, and Tigers, and Bears-Oh My. Or, you think of other things that come in threes, such as the past and the present
One of those experts was plaintiff himself—an emergency room doctor with a law degree. We all know what they say about lawyers who represent themselves. And that applies equally to doctors who try to act as their own causation experts. Add to that destructive testing after telling defendant no product existed and four more unreliable
This is our second go round with Vardouniotis v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 152029/2019 (N.Y. Sup.). When we posted about the court’s decision on defendant’s motion to dismiss, we were resigned to shrug our shoulders and accept that “nothing’s perfect.” It’s two years later and we’re still shrugging.
After the court allowed plaintiff’s negligence; gross
We have not shied away from letting our readers know what we think of the Bair Hugger litigation. And it’s not good (check it out here). Plaintiffs’ latest defeat is the affirmance of a defense verdict by the Missouri Court of Appeals. O’Haver v. 3M Company, 2024 WL 3034549 (Mo. Ct. App. Jun.