Photo of Steven Boranian

We have long thought that “direct filing” procedures in multidistrict litigation were a solution in search of a problem.  We also think direct filing procedures in MDLs pose significant waiver risks without a corresponding upside.  Alas, our inclinations were confirmed recently when the Seventh Circuit ruled that a mass tort defendant’s acquiescence to complaints filed

Some things were never meant to go together.  Oil and water.  Ice cream and ketchup.  Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort (although fans of the books will quickly point out that Boy Who Lived was actually linked inextricably to his arch enemy).  Picnics and honey bees.  Elected officials and the power to borrow money.  You get

A recent order in the Xarelto MDL caught our attention because it is an example of something we see more and more:  A plaintiff in multidistrict litigation who neither accepts a settlement program worked out in the MDL nor is prepared to proceed with his or her claims once the chance to settle has passed. 

When we first wrote on public universities requiring COVID-19 vaccines, we wondered why there was any controversy.  The government has been requiring vaccines in public schools for decades, and the constitutionality of government vaccine requirements has been settled for more than 100 years.  Courts have agreed—including the Seventh Circuit, as we reported here.

But

We reported two weeks ago on the poorly conceived and ill-fated attempt by students to enjoin a public university from mandating COVID-19 vaccines.  There simply is no fundamental right under the Constitution to refuse vaccination, which has been firmly established for more than 100 years.  Now the Seventh Circuit has agreed.

Let’s be candid about