Photo of Michelle Yeary

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

Sometimes there’s a little something for everyone.  Today’s case has personal jurisdiction, corporate veil piercing, PMA preemption, statute of limitations, and learned intermediary.  Not every decision on these issues goes the way we think it should, and perhaps the thorns outnumber the roses, but it caught our attention nonetheless.

The case is Franks v. Coopersurgical

Depending on your age, today’s title may evoke images of Hayley Mills or Lindsay Lohan.  We won’t ask you which.  It can be your secret.  But in an industry where remakes are rarely worth the price of admission, the Parent Trap is a rare exception, and we won’t fault you for liking both.  Today’s parent

Plaintiffs in mass tort drug and device litigation do not like to focus on the individual cases.  They like to amass the individual cases.  They like to file the individual cases.  But as we see all too often those filings tend to be indiscriminate and without the benefit of proper early vetting.  That is what

We offer today’s case as a good recitation of Alabama warranty and fraud law.  Both have precise pleading requirements that plaintiff failed to meet in Morris v. Angiodynamics, Inc., 2024WL 476884 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 7, 2024). 

Plaintiff was implanted with a port used to deliver his chemotherapy treatments.  About five months after implant, plaintiff