For our friends practicing in the Sunshine State, we want to highlight new rules amendments which took effect on January 1, 2025. Most notably, Florida joins states around the country adopting the proportionality language from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c).Continue Reading New Proportionality Language for Florida Rules
A Five-STAR Preemption Decision from the N.D. Okla.
Today we report on the court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss in Keim-Bacon v. Stryker Corp., No. 4:22-CV-00383-WPJ-MTS, 2024 WL 4886051, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 25, 2024). It is a straightforward application of Riegel preemption that gets it right on all fronts.
The Scandinavian Total Ankle Replacement System (“STAR”) is a Class
Court Shuts Down Expansion of New York Nuisance Law
Today’s case is not a drug or device case, but its holding is helpful to our clients who face state law nuisance claims arising from the acts of third parties.Continue Reading Court Shuts Down Expansion of New York Nuisance Law
California District Court Punts on Learned Intermediary Causation Post-Himes
We posted earlier this year about the failure to warn causation decision from the California Supreme Court in Himes v. Somatics, 549 P.3d 916 (Cal. 2024), and the potential parade of horribles that might ensue. Here comes the grand marshal of the parade.Continue Reading California District Court Punts on Learned Intermediary Causation Post-Himes
Taxotere Lone Pine Continues to Stand
Today we revisit the Lone Pine order for the Taxotere MDL. We previously discussed the entry of the Lone Pine order and the court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider entry of the order. Here, plaintiffs tried once again to take an axe to the Lone Pine, this time by arguing that it is unfair specifically with respect to deceased plaintiffs. The court roundly rejected plaintiffs’ arguments. In re: Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2024 WL 4362982 (E.D. La. Oct. 1, 2024).Continue Reading Taxotere Lone Pine Continues to Stand
N.D. Fla. Rejects Post-Removal Attempt to Amend to Defeat Diversity
We wrote a few days ago about a favorable ruling on a state human tissue shield statute in Heitman v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc. (N.D. Fla.). That case gave us another good procedural ruling to share, rejecting a trick we see all too often: an attempt to join a non-diverse defendant post-removal.Continue Reading N.D. Fla. Rejects Post-Removal Attempt to Amend to Defeat Diversity
Slam-Dunk Express Preemption Decision from the District of Arizona
Today we discuss an excellent express preemption decision from the District of Arizona, Skinner v. Small Bone Innovations Inc., 2024 WL 3639296 (D. Ariz. Aug. 2, 2024).
This decision involved the Scandinavian Total Ankle Replacement device (“STAR”). The STAR® Ankle is a Class III medical device subject to the Medical Device Amendments’ express preemption provision, 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a). This was Plaintiff’s second bite at the apple: The Court had already granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss but with leave to amend to attempt to state a parallel claim. See Skinner v. Small Bone Innovations Inc., No. CV-23-01051-PHX-MTL, 2023 WL 6318014, at *6 (D. Ariz. Sept. 28, 2023). After striking out in round one, Plaintiff fared no better in round two.Continue Reading Slam-Dunk Express Preemption Decision from the District of Arizona
FDA Releases Draft Guidance on Responding to Internet Hogwash
Last week, FDA released for comment a draft guidance titled Addressing Misinformation About Medical Devices and Prescription Drugs: Questions and Answers. FDA guidances are nonbinding recommendations without force of law, and this is only a draft. Nonetheless, it addresses a frequent and important problem in our industry.Continue Reading FDA Releases Draft Guidance on Responding to Internet Hogwash
Delaware Zantac Court Fails to Keep the Gate
This post is from the non-Reed Smith, non-Dechert, and non-Holland & Knight side of the blog.
We have covered the ranitidine litigation before. As we explained in prior posts (including here and here), plaintiffs allege that ranitidine, the active ingredient in Zantac, breaks down into N-Nitrosodimethylamine (“NDMA”), particularly at higher temperatures. NDMA is a known carcinogen and a ubiquitous substance present in the environment and in all manner of foods including bacon, beer, and cheese. Readers will remember that in a sweeping, 341-page opinion, the MDL court cut the head off the federal Zantac litigation by excluding plaintiffs’ experts. But other parts of the snake keep slithering. Continue Reading Delaware Zantac Court Fails to Keep the Gate
Post-Gilead Heartburn in the California Ranitidine Litigation
This post is from the non-Reed Smith, non-Dechert , and non-Holland & Knight side of the blog. Everyone else is involved.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is a classic Clint Eastwood spaghetti Western where even the Good may not be all good. In California state court, a demurrer sustained is a defense win, right? Although there are some bright spots, In re Ranitidine Cases is one of the ugliest defense wins we have seen in a while, providing leave to amend and a roadmap for further expansion of the Gilead duty-to-innovate.Continue Reading Post-Gilead Heartburn in the California Ranitidine Litigation