Yes, we are the Drug and Device Law Blog. Yes, we at times stray into other areas when we think a decision has application to our DDL world. Yes, today’s case is about a “drug” product. No, today’s case is not about a drug for humans. In fact, it really isn’t about a drug at
Plaintiff Has to Connect the Dots on FCA Claim
Do kids still do connect-the-dots? Back before tablets, smart phones, laptops, and even computers, when you went on a long car trip you passed the time playing license plate bingo, punch buggy, annoying your parents, and maybe you had an “activity book.” An actual paperback book filled with coloring pages, mazes, word scrambles, seek-a-word, and
Split Decision in MDL “Bellwether Discovery” Case
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
New Jersey’s Net Opinion Rule Catches Up to Plaintiff’s Experts in Manufacturing Defect Case
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
No Bespoke Products Liability Claims in Texas
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
OTC Drug Approval Not for the Courts to Decide
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
MDL Master Complaint — What’s the Point?
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
Vague Testing Allegations Not Enough to Find Standing
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
Two-fer Tuesday–When Summary Judgment is Granted, Plaintiffs Should be Prepared to Pay Costs
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