We observed oral argument the other day before the California Supreme Court in Himes v. Somatics, a case that places California’s learned intermediary doctrine squarely in the spotlight. A learned intermediary case before the California Supreme Court? For your ever-vigilant DDL bloggers, that is like Thanksgiving and Christmas wrapped into one!
Who will be
It is a whole lot harder to file documents under seal than it used to be. We recall an MDL in the early 2000s where the parties filed everything under seal over the course of multiple years—litigating for the viewing pleasure of our “friends and family,” as the district judge often chided us. Times have
The unwieldy and sometimes unfair nature of multidistrict litigation has become a recurring theme on the DDL Blog. We have long commented on the “if you build it, they will come” dynamic that leads to hundreds or thousands of cases gathered, filed, and then parked in an MDL—all hoping to do as little
The MDL and state court proceedings involving saxagliptin-based diabetes drugs (such as Onglyza and Kombiglyze) strike us as the mass tort that never should have been. These proceedings initially followed a familiar model—a publication identified a signal of a risk (albeit an exceptionally weak signal), and plaintiffs’ lawyers took their cue to collect their inventories
We don’t see many cases involving human tissue, but medical products derived from human tissue are actually quite common. Skin replacement products, tissue-engineered cartilage, compounds for treating bone fractures and tumors. Those kinds of things. Just yesterday in our annual Ten Best/Ten Worst Cases webinar we discussed a case involving transplanted human eye tissue.
We reported a few months ago on oral argument in the California Court of Appeal in Gilead Life Sciences v. Superior Court, where the parties argued about whether California law recognizes a broad “duty to innovate.” At issue was whether a product manufacturer could be liable to patients taking one drug for failing to
We had the pleasure of speaking on a panel at ACI last week, including discussion of the terrific order from the Zantac MDL excluding all the plaintiffs’ general causation experts. That order essentially did away with an entire MDL and came in fourth on our list of best decisions of 2022 . Our thoroughly enjoyable
We knew as soon as we read the Supreme Court’s opinion in Mutual Pharma v. Bartlett that its reasoning should extend beyond generic drugs and would support implied preemption in generic and innovator products alike. We were generally correct. Bartlett held that federal law preempted state law design defect claims involving a generic drug because
California’s Proposition 65 has become a poster child for ineffective and counterproductive over-warning. You know what we are talking about. Prop 65 is the voter-enacted law that requires businesses to warn Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that allegedly cause cancer or birth defects. See Cal. H&S Code § 25249.5 et seq. A decent idea
We write today with an update on a case applying the defense of illegality (or “in pari delicto”) to cut off product liability claims under Kansas law. Messerli v. AW Distributing, Inc. is the sad case of someone who passed away, allegedly as a result of inhaling intoxicating fumes (or “huffing”) from computer