Today’s case — In re Tepezza Mkt’g, Sales Pracs., & Prod. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3079, 2025 WL 81338 (N.D. Ill. Nov. Jan. 10, 2025) – doesn’t really break new ground on the substantive law, in fact it is a split decision. But it comes from an unusual procedural posture worth pointing out.
The
Defendant in Beavan v. Allergan U.S.A., Inc., 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2898 (N.J. App. Nov. 21, 2024) made two solid arguments for summary judgment – preemption based on the FDCA’s recall regulations and plaintiff’s lack of admissible expert testimony. The trial court rejected both. The appellate court, however, saw the merit in the
Bespoke makes us think of tailoring, which makes us think of London’s Savile Row, which makes us think of Annie’s You’re Never Fully Dressed Without a Smile (“who cares what they’re wearing on Main Street or Savile Row”). Which as it turns out is perfect for today’s case about a plaintiff who wanted the court
This one seems pretty straightforward to us, but that did not stop plaintiff in Argueta v. Walgreens Company, 2024 WL 5186825 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2024), from trying to make a claim based on allegations that the product was illegal to sell because it was not FDA approved. No allegation that the product caused
Is the question we are asking ourselves after reading Butler v. 3M Company, 2024 WL 5054884 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2024). Because if plaintiffs get to amend their complaints post-remand to add whole new claims and allegations, then the MDL process of litigating based on a master complaint doesn’t seem to make a lot
Just last week we blogged about our disappointment over the Third Circuit’s resurrection of a “benefit of the bargain theory” of standing in Huertas v. Bayer US LLC, 120 F.4th 1169 (3d Cir. 2024). But we also recognized that Huertas had a silver lining that defendants could still use to challenge standing—by challenging the
We are all familiar with the phrase—the rules are the rules. Meaning, rules should be enforced consistently, regardless of personal circumstances. Essentially the opposite of—rules are made to be broken. Meaning, exceptions to the rules abound. The law is full of both the former (strict adherence rules) and the latter (loose
So learned some plaintiffs in In re: Hair Relaxer Marketing Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 3060, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206474 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2024). While not a drug or device case, the problem it exhibits is common to many mass torts. Plaintiffs’ counsels’ solicitations produce a rush to file complaints
Just about three months ago, we blogged about Rule 25 dismissals in the Bair Hugger MDL, and today we bring you more of the same from Taxotere. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 provides that “[i]f a party dies . . . the court may order substitution of the proper party.” Rule 25 goes