Plaintiff lawyers read this blog, which we like. Criticism occasionally comes our way because the blogposts – horrors! – harbor a particular point of view. And that point of view occasionally gets recharacterized as bias or an admission against our clients. Such recharacterizations are invariably nonsensical. So far, they have never obtained even a foothold
MDL Common Benefit Funds Cannot Pilfer from Non-MDL Cases
In re Hair Relaxer Mkt. Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150916 (N.D. Illinois Aug. 22, 2024), is a fairly interesting decision on MDL procedure. We say “fairly” because the case is mostly a matter of voyeurism for defense hacks. The case is about how lead plaintiff counsel get paid. Nobody
N.D. Illinois Holds that Natural Water Class Action is all Wet
One of the break-through moments in the first year of law school is when your Contracts professor distinguishes actionable promises from mere “puffery.” Not every statement invites reliance. You cannot take every statement by a seller literally. The concept of non actionable puffery is the law’s way of telling us to grow up, to get
Bair Hugger MDL Court Dismisses Cases for Failures to File Timely Suggestions of Death
We are in the midst (at least we hope we are that far) of wrapping up an MDL settlement. As is typical, the settlement envisions a minimum participation rate After all, why would a client fling a fat wad of cash at plaintiffs’ counsel, only later to fling not-quite-as-fat-wads at their own counsel to continue
Gardasil MDL Court Dismisses Plaintiffs Who Had Not Timely Filed in Vaccine Court
We are not speaking for anyone else (clients, colleagues, our firm, etc.) when we say that drug and device product liability cases should be patterned after the Vaccine Act (42 U.S.C. Section 300aa-1 et seq.). It is faster, fairer, more predictable, and cheaper for everyone. From the defense side, we like that actions under the
Hip, Hip … Meh? N.D. Cal. Issues Mixed Bag of Rulings on Hip Implant Claim
We have often characterized judicial options as mixed bags, and a recent example of such a mixed bag can be found in Muldoon v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130020 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2024). The plaintiff claimed injuries from a ceramic-on-metal hip implant. He alleged that friction and wear caused the
MDL CPAP Plaintiffs Alleging Injuries Not Covered by Settlement Lacked Standing to Challenge or Rewrite Such Settlement
Many years ago an especially wise in-house lawyer (he is a reader of the blog, and we know he will understand that this reference comes from respect, not sycophancy) told us that law firms angling for his business usually aimed their pitches incorrectly. Lawyers love to brag about their trial prowess. That turns out to
MDL Court (Mostly) Requires in Person Depositions of Plaintiffs
To Zoom or not to Zoom? That is the question, at least when it comes to taking depositions of mass tort plaintiffs. We take no overall position on this issue, having been on both sides of the debate. Situational ethics govern us. Be that as it may, we view developments in this area with interest.
A Lawyer’s Lessons from The Bear
When Summer temperatures rise, our analytical ambitions drop. Torpor sets in, and it sets in hard. It is no accident that it is in July and August when our posts are most likely to contain more pop culture than precedent. (Here is one of our favorite examples.) Meanwhile, this is also the time of
Cal. Human Tissue Shield Statute Bars Claims for Strict Liability and Breach of Warranty
Lokkart v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111265 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2024), is yet another case arising from the unfortunate contamination of a batch of tissue allograft with a disease. We have written about similar cases before. These cases have consistently produced favorable precedent concerning state human tissue shield statutes (in