We have often characterized judicial options as mixed bags, and a recent example of such a mixed bag can be found in Muldoon v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130020 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2024). The plaintiff claimed injuries from a ceramic-on-metal hip implant. He alleged that friction and wear caused the
We are celebrating an anniversary today: We wrote our first blogpost on July 26, 2013. Eleven years and hundreds of posts later, we have two observations. First, we seriously need to update our blog profile photo. Or maybe we will just ride out our blogging years promoting the fiction that we are younger and fitter
This post is not from the Butler Snow part of the Blog.
The plaintiff in Sheinfeld v. B. Braun Medical, Inc., 2024 WL 635483 (Mag. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2024), adopted 2024 WL 1075329 (S.D.N.Y. March 12, 2024), was representing himself (“pro se” in legal Latin). Why was that?
Continue Reading There’s a Reason Some Plaintiffs Are Pro Se
We have seen a number of consumer fraud class action cases brought over a range of fairly ticky tacky issues about OTC drugs and consumer products. California law and courts have been fairly favorable to these cases, which follow a pattern of a test plaintiff seeking to represent some large class because (s)he claims to
We write a lot of briefs involving federal preemption and Class III medical devices with premarket approval (or “PMA”). Many of those briefs are in support of motions to dismiss lawsuits brought by attorneys who don’t regularly practice in the pharmaceutical and medical device product liability space.
The complaints filed by such attorneys often are
We’ve discussed decisions applying preemption under the Public Readiness & Emergency Preparedness Act (hereafter “PREP Act”), 42 U.S.C. §247d-6d, on several occasions since the COVID-19 pandemic began. At this point, some four years after the COVID-19 pandemic declaration, we believe that sufficient PREP Act preemption precedent has accumulated, and that the caselaw is sufficiently
Before we dive into today’s case, Avrin v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 2024 WL 115672 (C.D. Cal. March 15, 2024), we offer two preliminary observations:
1. We love to hear from our readers. Sometimes we get emails commenting on a post. Often, those comments arrive in the form of gushing reviews. That’s nice. Less often
Today’s guest post is by Amy McVeigh and Jessica Farmer, who are partners at Holland & Knight. They comment on the demise of another purported class action against a manufacturer of hydrogen peroxide, which is an FDA-regulated over-the-counter (“OTC”) drug. As always our guest posters deserve 100% of the credit (and any blame)
We all know that getting it right isn’t as easy as it sounds. Straightforward application of established law ought to be simple. If only it were so. Today’s decision gets it right, and we’re happy to report on Wilhite v. Medtronic, Inc., 2024 WL 968867 (N.D. Ala., Mar. 6, 2024).
Wilhite involved allegations that
[B]ecause the statute contains an express pre-emption clause, we do not invoke any presumption against pre-emption but instead focus on