As one court succinctly put it over a decade ago: “No federal appellate court has approved a nationwide personal injury, product liability or medical monitoring class.” Durocher v. NCAA, 2015 WL 1505675, at *10 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2015). That remains true today—and the plaintiff in Lester v. Abiomed, Inc., 2026 WL
Cannabis is big business, so it was only a matter of time before someone filed a consumer class action claiming that his cannabis was schwag. It happened in Illinois, where a judge in the Northern District promptly shot it down—not because the plaintiff’s theory was necessarily wrong, but because his theory of deception was a
Sometimes we feel as though we have gone back in time. The Super Bowl is in San Francisco this week, as it was 10 years ago, although this time around, the atrium lobby of our building has been converted into an ESPN studio. We are the temporary home of the Rich Eisen Show, with the
It’s been a been a while – some five years – since we discussed cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. That’s mostly because, aside from the occasional result-oriented atrocity that occurred in the Valsartan MDL, class actions are no longer a top-shelf problem in prescription medical product liability litigation. But it’s still nice to report on a
Just because something is common doesn’t mean it’s predominate, and it definitely doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Colds are common. So are traffic jams, mosquitos, and people who say, “Let’s circle back.” None of those things are dominant forces of greatness—they’re just annoyances we’ve sadly grown used to. Like plaintiffs seeking to certify products
The Avandia MDL has been a long, winding, and ultimately meritless road. The FDA approved the drug to treat Type II diabetes in 1999, and the MDL got going in 2007, after a widely publicized, but ultimately disproven meta-analysis purported to show that Avandia presented an increased risk of heart attacks.
That was 18 years
Plaintiffs often like to sue in New Jersey, but that does not mean they always get what they want. The California plaintiffs in Serrano v. Campbell Soup Co. sued a beverage company in New Jersey, but the court rejected their New Jersey law claims and left them with only one California claim—and even then, only
That concept does not feel like it should be controversial in any way. Afterall, at the heart of class action tolling of the statute of limitations, as announced in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), is there must be a pending class action. But the concept gets a little
We reported a few months ago on a California court that largely gutted a pharma-related privacy class action centered on the alleged disclosure of personal information through the use of computer pixels. Today we bring you another pixel case, but with a different outcome. In Jancik v. WebMD LLC, No. 1:22-cv-644, 2025 U.S. Dist.
