This is a defense blog. Are we biased? Yes, we are. We come by that bias honestly, via temperament, principle, and client loyalty. We are happy to report on defense wins. If we report at all on plaintiff wins, it will be grudgingly and typically accompanied by heaping helpings of regrets and criticisms.
Have we
It is December 26, and all is quiet on the home front. The Drug and Device Law Family exchanged gifts, took long walks, and ate the traditional herb-encrusted rib roast. The year is nearly over, and having reached a certain age, we can say for sure that time flies when you are having fun. We
If it’s Wednesday, it’s plainly time to talk about removal. Today’s case, In re Depo Provera Prods Liab. Litigation, 2025 WL 3252445 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2025), upholds one of the defense bar’s favorite procedural maneuvers,snap removal. The case was snapped in California, in the Ninth Circuit, and transferred to the Multidistrict Litigation in
As mentioned last week, we’re having an odd moment in our practice when virtually all our cases involve feverish battles over whether the cases belong in state or federal court. Care to guess which side of the argument we’re adopting? (Hint: we prefer judges who will actually pay attention to dispositive motions and might even
Today’s case, Clayton v. Zimmer United States, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213345 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 29, 2025), marks two weeks in a row where we discuss good (for the defense) court decisions coming out of Ohio. Meanwhile, in our non-blogging-but-actually-paying part of our job, we’re on something like our fifth week in a
This time of year, many of us are focused on the NFL playoffs. For someone who watches the Super Bowl for the commercials or the halftime show, which team wins may not matter much. For those devoted to a particular team, however, there is one possible result that will be truly satisfying. The reality is
We have written many times, as recently as Tuesday, that the practice of plaintiff lawyers to include patently inapplicable claims among a laundry list of causes of action asserted in complaints is lazy, if not problematic. It is rare to see a plaintiff self-regulate and cull down an overbroad pleading without a defense motion
Long ago, a senior partner told us that clear writing flows from clear thinking. That might be so, but clear thinking and clear writing do not necessarily produce the correct result. For example, you’d have a tough time finding a legal opinion written more clearly than Calchi v. Topco Assocs., LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist.
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
As we recently noted when discussing snap removals, corporate defendants sued by individuals are generally at a disadvantage when forced to litigate in state rather than federal court. We know this and plaintiffs know this. It is why plaintiffs commonly file suit in state court, why corporate defendants typically remove cases to federal court