Today’s case is about a very unfortunate set of circumstances. A woman who suffered from bipolar disorder and who was not trying to get pregnant did in fact become pregnant two months after being prescribed a mood stabilizer that carried a black box warning regarding birth defects. Fisher v. Abott Labs, 2023 U.S. Dist.
Plaintiff’s Expert’s “Gut” Feeling Not Enough to Withstand Rule 702 or Summary Judgment
Listen to your gut. Follow your instincts. Trust your intuition. Great advice in many situations. Like deciding whether to buy skinny jeans or whether to buy your forever home. Or, when things seem “off” or feel “dangerous.” Or, when your body is trying to tell you something about your health. These are all times to
S.D. Alabama Puts Surgeons Before Sales Representatives
Plaintiffs love sales representatives. They love to use them to try to keep cases in state court—naming them as non-diverse defendants. They love to try to use them to get around preemption—claiming a direct duty from the rep to the plaintiff. And they certainly love making sales representative statements and conduct a focal point of
FDA’s Rules are FDA’s to Enforce
We can sum up the claim in Telebrands Corp. v. Luminas Int’l LLC, like this—hey court, it’s not fair that I’m following the FDA’s rules and my competitors are not, so you should force them to do so to even the playing field. 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179285 (S.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2023). To
SIRVA Case Dismissed on Preemption and Pleadings Grounds
We say today’s case is about SIRVA (shoulder injury related to vaccine administration), but plaintiff tried her best to run from that allegation in her opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. That’s because a SIRVA case runs up against not only a preemption obstacle, but also serious duty and causation barriers. But since the court
. . . Try, Try Again; But Enough is Enough
Is what the court finally had to tell plaintiff in Roshkovan v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166742 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2023) in dismissing his second amended complaint as both preempted and inadequately pleaded. We posted about the dismissals of the original and first amended complaints on the same grounds here
More Food Labeling Claims Preempted
We know this is the Drug and Device Law Blog, but the similarities between food labeling preemption and medical device preemption are just too strong for us to pass up. In both contexts, the FDCA has express preemption provisions. The Medical Device Amendments to the FDCA, prohibit any state law or regulation “which is different
Plaintiff’s Expert Doesn’t Measure Up
If a court tells you your only non-preempted claim is one based on a theory that your labeling does not comply with the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), it’s probably a good idea for your expert so opine. Opting instead for expert testimony based on a consumer’s perspective is risky and likely problematic.
Conspiracy Allegations Not Enough to Keep Barebones Complaint Alive in California
Plaintiff in Gurule v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 49321 (Cal. Super. Jul. 18, 2023), tried to pull off a little magic through misdirection, but couldn’t fool the court. Plaintiff tried to distract the court from the complete lack of sufficient allegations to satisfy even notice pleading requirements by alleging an elaborate
Good Venue Ruling in Missouri, With a Word of Caution on Timeliness
St. Louis City courts have long been considered among the most pro-plaintiff in the country and for years litigation tourists flocked there using multi-plaintiff complaints with a single city resident to secure the venue. Then the world changed in 2019. The Missouri Supreme Court decided State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson v. Burlison, 567