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. 

After eschewing our blogging duties during a very long trial—followed by short deliberations and a verdict for the good guys—we are back at it.  Normally, a significant criterion in how we select a case for a post is the length of the decision—the shorter, the better for our normally busy work lives.  After trial, there

This blog is no stranger to the In re Smith & Nephew Birmingham HIP Resurfacing (BBR) HIP Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2775, pending in the District of Maryland.  Nor have we hidden our disregard for several of its decisions, going back to its preemption ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss which made our

The Xarelto personal injury claims settled in 2019 after six bellwether trials all ended with defense verdicts.  What remained, until now, were several third-party payor (health insurers, “TPPs”) actions that have been dormant for almost six years.  Despite the passage of time, the motions before the court in 2021 were to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6)

The plaintiff in Salinero v. Johnson & Johnson, __ F.3d __, No. 20-10900, 2021 WL 1681237 (11th Cir. Apr. 29, 2021), tried a new twist to get around the learned intermediary rule—and it did not work.  The district court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to graft a “financial bias” exception onto Florida’s learned intermediary rule,