In this week when we celebrate the founding of our country, other than a case from Philadelphia, second best would be to talk about Virginia. It’s the home of the first English settlement, where the first Thanksgiving was held, and was home to eight U.S. Presidents. And drug and device defense lawyers have some pretty
We wrote recently that California’s courts have never met a case they did not like. We were speaking somewhat tongue in cheek of course, but still California remains a destination for litigation tourists trying to take advantage of laws and procedures that many view as plaintiff friendly. One bulwark against blatant forum shopping is personal jurisdiction under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bauman and Bristol-Myers Squibb cases, the latter reversing the California Supreme Court, which restored some measure of discipline to jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants.
Another potential bulwark is choice of law. That is to say, even when a plaintiff sues in California, the applicable choice-of-law rules might compel the application of another state’s law, which could doom the plaintiff’s claims.
That is what happened this week in Nelson v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., No. 21-cv-10074, 2022 WL 17259056 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2022) (to be published in F. Supp. 3d), where a Florida resident and Army veteran used a generic prescription drug while stationed in Kentucky and overseas and allegedly suffered complications. But he chose to sue in California. Why? Because the manufacturer of the branded version of the drug (not the generic version that the plaintiff actually used) was based in California at the time he filed (having relocated from New Jersey), and California is one of a very few states that allows innovator liability—i.e., holding an innovator/branded manufacturer potentially liable for a generic product that it did not make, did not sell, and from which it did not make any profit.
Continue Reading Federal Judge In California Cabins Innovator Liability
When we say “bananas,” today’s case is actually about bananas, that herb people tend to call a fruit. It is also quite unusual and complicated. Because it also involves some tragic underlying events, our quips are done. A bit of etymology is warranted, though. We used the term “judge-made law” in the title and that
We have promised ourselves that we will stream this week’s “This Is Us” episode when we finish this blog post. We love this series beyond reason, and we dread its imminent demise, notwithstanding the title’s grammatical transgression. (We generally condition any sort of allegiance on correct use of predicate nominatives.) We are struck, over and
We heard the other day from attorneys involved in the MDL direct filing, choice-of-law case that we wrote about a couple of weeks ago, Looper v. Cook Inc. Engaging in this kind of dialogue is one of the joys of blogging, even when our friends and colleagues write to tell us we got
We have long thought that “direct filing” procedures in multidistrict litigation were a solution in search of a problem. We also think direct filing procedures in MDLs pose significant waiver risks without a corresponding upside. Alas, our inclinations were confirmed recently when the Seventh Circuit ruled that a mass tort defendant’s acquiescence to complaints filed
“Location, location, location” isn’t a mantra only for real estate agents. Location also matters to lawyers. In Axline v. 3M Co., 2021 WL 3411822 (8th Cir. Aug. 5, 2021), whether the Bair Hugger product liability case could go forward turned on the choice of law between Minnesota and Ohio. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the
Bexis has just returned from a week’s vacation in Acadia National Park in Maine. After being rained out for a couple of days due to a stray hurricane, he climbed four mountains in three days – the Precipice Trail up Mt. Champlain; the West Face Cadillac Mountain trail up that mountain, and the Jordan Cliffs/Deer
In Knapp v. Zoetis Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 63783 (E.D. Va. March 31, 2021), the plaintiff alleged that administration of an equine antibiotic caused his horse, Boomer, to experience “persistent lameness” and permanent damage to the “musculature in his neck.” Boomer was not okay. His condition was far from stable.
The plaintiff claimed
It may be tempting to dismiss as boilerplate the “choice of law” discussion that precedes the “standard of review” in a typical brief. But while choice of law may not always be challenging or pivotal, just as often it is both. Today’s case, Peterson v. C.R. Bard Incorporated, 2021 WL 799305 (D. Or. Mar.