Corporate defendants do not always enjoy being in St. Louis. We don’t mean that as a knock on the Gateway Arch or the superb zoo or the excellent food options or even (grrrr) “baseball heaven.” We mean that St. Louis City Court is singularly inhospitable to tort defendants. The advance sheets are full of big (in
SDNY Dismisses Lawsuit Alleging Rapid Release Acetominophen is Not So Rapid
Bischoff v. Albertsons Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS109367 (SDNY June 26, 2023), is another favorable preemption ruling in the current spate of class action strike suits attacking “rapid release” over-the-counter (OTC) products, here acetaminophen, that were marketed in conformity with FDA regulations.
The plaintiff claimed that she purchased a generic form of “rapid release”
C.D. Cal. Severs Non-California Plaintiffs from Hair Care Case
Albahae v. Olaplex Holdings, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105361 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2023), is not a drug/device case, but is a very good case severing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 an attempt to join 101 plaintiffs on claims involving their use of the defendant’s hair care products. To be specific, there
M.D. Florida Excludes ECT Plaintiff Expert Opinion on General Causation
Here’s a shocker: being a tv star doctor does not make one a viable expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. That’s not just our say-so (or ipse dixit). One of our reliance materials is Thelen v. Somatics, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101970 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2023). The plaintiff in that case
Med-Mal Plaintiff Expert Standard of Care Opinion Unnecessary Due to FDA Warnings
Law school taught us that design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn are the big troika of product liability theories. Real life practice taught us that failure to warn is far and away the most common and dangerous claim we face. It is easy for plaintiffs to allege and easy for juries to follow
Some Welcome Clarity on Preemption
Every once in a while in this space we summarize law review articles. In the course of doing so, we typically pat ourselves on the back by announcing that we read such articles so that you don’t have to. That is not true with the article we are discussing today, Goldberg, Gramling, & O’Rourke, “A
New York Federal Court Dismisses Medical Device Design Defect, Manufacturing Defect, and Warning Claims
By the time of a Fourth Amended Complaint, a plaintiff is bound to get things right, right? Wrong. In Greenwood v. Arthrex, Inc. et al., 2023 WL 3570436,(W.D.N.Y. May 19, 2023), the plaintiff claimed that a medical device burned her during surgery. She filed one, two, three, four, and, ultimately, five complaints under New
North Carolina Court Dismisses Surgical Stapler Lawsuit
A plaintiff lawyer recently filed a case against our client in North Carolina. He has made a settlement demand that any rational observer would regard as ambitious to the point of outrageous. Despite that crazy number, we are on fairly friendly terms with the plaintiff lawyer. We jawbone at each other in a generally good
Presidential Pardon Does Not Undo Criminal Conviction or Support Corporate Indemnification
We have a weak spot for criminal cases. We also have a weak spot for doom-scrolling, inevitably provoked by the country’s insane politics over the last eight years. And we have a weak spot for visiting nearby Delaware, home of tax-free shopping, excellent beaches, Dogfish Head Brewery, and judges who know corporate law. We live
D.N.J. Dumps Diarrhea Drug Case Against Manufacturer
It is looking very much as if the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case this upcoming October term that will permit it, at long last, to inter the Chevron doctrine. Under that doctrine, if there is ambiguity about the scope of rule making powers provided to an agency by Congress, courts will defer to