No one can argue with that title because Bruno v. Bluetriton Brands, Inc., was most definitely dismissed completely on preemption grounds. 2024 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 98451 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2024). In so ruling, the court handed class action plaintiffs a significant defeat on of their latest litigation endeavors: “microplastics” in water. It’s not a
What’s Past is Prologue
A little over two years ago, we wrote a post called What’s In a Name? discussing an attempt by two plaintiffs to hold Pfizer liable for fraud and misrepresentation based on an allegation that it was misleading to call the drug Chantix by its name if it was contaminated. That case, as we noted in
No Standing for No Injury Medical Monitoring Claim in West Virginia Federal Court
The 2024 Annual Meeting of the American Law Institute (“ALI”) got under way yesterday. Therefore, based on what happened last year (described in detail here), we assume we are on the brink of the ALI taking the monumentally non-restating step of recognizing no-injury medical monitoring. In a case of twisted timing, as we await
“It Doesn’t Work” Is Not Good Enough for Consumer Protection Claim Involving a Homeopathic Product
Generally, there is no medical basis for most claims on homeopathic product labels. But thousands if not millions of people use and find value in homeopathic products, apparently regardless of the fact that the science underpinning the products is shaky at best and possibly non-existent. However, just because one of these pseudo-remedies doesn’t work for
Hospitals in Oregon are Now Subject to Strict Liability as Sellers
If you have a good memory, the title of today’s post may seem familiar. That’s because about sixteen months ago, we told you about the appellate court decision in Oregon that reached this conclusion. Now it is official. The Oregon Supreme Court has weighed in and agrees that under Oregon’s product liability statute, hospitals are
A New Version of the One-Two Punch: Standing and Preemption
Oh, so many years ago we started calling cases that prevent innovator liability and preempt generic liability the “one-two punch.” But really any decision that strikes a substantive blow and follows it up with a preemption jab is OK in our books. And that is just what happened in Harris v. Medtronic Inc., 2024 WL
E.D. Texas Dismisses Off-Label Promotion False Claims Act Case
It has been some time since we have discussed False Claims Act (“FCA”) litigation over alleged promotion of a prescription drug for off-label uses. And when we read United States ex rel. Hearrell v. Allergan, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70888 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2024) we were reminded why. Off-label promotion is not
Federal Subpoena Power is Limited and Does Not Bend to Convenience
Remember the case we told you about last week where the court shutdown plaintiff’s attempt to use non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel? Well, that wasn’t that plaintiff’s only loss that week. In a companion decision, the court also rejected plaintiff’s attempt to use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a)’s remote trial testimony rule to skirt the
NJ Economic Loss Class Action Dismissed for Lack of Standing
We have previously analogized that when a case is dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12, that is like the plaintiff not even getting to first base. And that when a complaint is dismissed for lack of standing, a rarer form of dismissal, the plaintiff couldn’t even get up to bat, let
A Design Defect Claim By Any Other Name . . . Is Still a Design Defect Claim
So plaintiffs learned in the In re: Gardasil Products Liability Litigation, MDL 3036, 2024 WL 1197919 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 20, 2024). Try as they did in 550-paragraph and 120-page complaints to muddle their claims, the court cleared away the muck and found what was left was almost all preempted by the Vaccine Act.
While pending