The recent spate of gadolinium cases brought by patients with normal kidney function are looking like fertile ground for federal preemption, and we are not saying that just because we like the results. Our point is that if you had to come up with an example of a case where federal law ought to preempt
The Sun Shines on Heightened Pleading Standards in Arizona
We don’t write a lot about our neighboring state of Arizona, but a recent hip replacement case in the District of Arizona caught our eye. We lived in Arizona for a year back in the mid-1990s, and it is a genuinely interesting and underestimated place. The 2010 census results have Phoenix as the sixth largest
No Physician Testimony, No Causation in Georgia and Delaware
This is a quick-hit post bringing you two first-of-their-kind orders on proving causation in cases alleging inadequate drug or medical device warnings. In orders applying Georgia’s and Delaware’s versions of the learned intermediary doctrine, two different federal courts have held that a plaintiff alleging inadequate warnings cannot meet his or her burden of proving causation
General Causation Experts Excluded In Viagra/Cialis MDL
The Ninth Circuit has not been great for us on Daubert. I suppose it is more accurate to say that the Ninth Circuit has not been great for those who oppose the introduction of unreliable scientific expert opinions. But that is usually us, the defendants resisting plaintiffs’ efforts to get to juries with scientific
Another Good Pradaxa Preemption Ruling—This One In California
We were going back through some old cases the other day and came across a gem from our hometown court right here in in San Francisco. It caught our eye because it deals with an angle of federal preemption on which we have written before and which we think is underappreciated, so we’re going to
Tolling Agreement’s Clear Language Saves The Day
We don’t often write about statutes of limitations because the cases tend to be fact bound and not all that illuminating on larger points of law and/or practice. However, a case in California struck a chord with us recently because it highlights a point that we think every litigator should understand: Tolling agreements should not
Sweet And Low In Chicago
Today is Friday, December 20, 2019, the last day on which many of our readers will be in the office before settling their brains for a long winter’s nap. We wish you all the very best, and our holiday gift to you today is a case about candy. Not just any candy. Today we bring
Severance of Misjoined Claims–Why Not More Often?
We have always wondered why judges are hesitant to sever the claims of plaintiffs who never should have joined their claims together in the first place. You know what we mean—multiple plaintiffs, sometimes dozens of them, who join their claims together in one complaint based only on the allegation that they used the same or
Removed to Federal Court? Not So Fast, Unless You’re Faster!
They are often called “snap removals” or “wrinkle removals.” They refer to cases removed to federal court before a forum defendant is served, which is one way to comply with the forum defendant rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). That statute says that a civil action otherwise removable on diversity jurisdiction may not be removed
Idaho Breaks The Right Way on Innovator Liability
California and Idaho share some similarities, but also many differences. Both are sprawling Western states. Both are year-round meccas for outdoor activities of all types, whether it be hiking, skiing, rafting, mountain biking, or just gazing idly at some of the most stunning scenery you will ever hope to see. Both California and Idaho have