The Supreme Court decided Buckman in the context of a fairly large product liability litigation about implanted medical devices. In the years that followed, the plaintiffs in drug and device product liability litigation tried a number of arguments to cabin the impact of Buckman. For instance, they argued that it 1) did not apply
If you share your life with a dog, you know the drill. You call them by a hundred names. You talk to them like they understand every word (they might). You make decisions about their health with the same care — maybe more — than you would for yourself. So when a dog gets hurt
Not too long ago we wrote about McKenzie v. Progressive Treatment Solutions, LLC, 2026 WL 636741 (N.D. Ill. March 6, 2026). One of the things about McKenzie that caught our eye was the statement that, under Illinois law, “misrepresentations or mistakes of law cannot form the basis of a claim for fraud.” Id. at
Foster v. Nestle USA, Inc., 2026 WL 893348 (N.D. Ill. March 31, 2026), is not a drug or device case, but it is noteworthy because the court held that there was no private right of action under the Illinois Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Then again, the case is about chocolate, and chocolate has
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
At the DDL blog we unashamedly confess our biases. Foremost among those biases is that we walk the defense side of the street. Another inescapable bias, at least for this particular scribbler, is that we know and like many of the Philly judges. In the City of Brotherly Love, familiarity breeds respect.
Over the past
It is not as if the Wednesday slot is reserved for flakey stuff, but we’ll confess a weakness for cases from the Ninth Circuit, where we clerked. A lot of craziness percolates up through federal courts out there. We also have a soft spot for cases that are not exactly in the product liability heartland
Bexis knows that cases like Daughtry v. Silver Fern Chemical, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11431, 2025 WL 1364806 (5th Cir. May 12, 2025), hit our sweet spot. It is a civil case, but it also emits a whiff of criminal law. It purports to be, among other things, a product liability case, but it turns
We’ve written before about the long-running Muldoon v. DePuy Orthopedics lawsuit. For one thing, it’s been around forever – its facts are almost as old as the Blog. As we stated here:
Muldoon . . . is a suit over hip-replacement surgery conducted in 2007. Suit was not filed, however, until 2015 – undoubtedly Muldoon is another example of the flotsam and jetsam dredged up by MDL lawyer solicitation. So Muldoon was stale from the beginning. But it got worse. For some eight years, Muldoon sat in the horribly mismanaged Pinnacle Hip MDL in Texas. It appears that nothing at all happened during those years . . . [until] 2023, when the case was ultimately remanded, without comment. So, due to the combined lassitude of the plaintiffs and MDL management, the suit is nearly 14½ years post-surgery, and only now being addressed on the pleadings.
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
Finally, in Muldoon v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 34013 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2025), it was dismissed with prejudice. And in the end, the plaintiff didn’t even put up a fight. Faced with the defendant’s latest dismissal motion, “[p]laintiff has declined to file any opposition.” Id. at *2. What was at stake this time were the claims that had survived the defendant’s first dismissal motion against the plaintiff’s absurdly excessive 18-count post-MDL amended complaint. We had some words to say about that complaint as well: “It is a dog’s breakfast. Or it is what our dogs deliver to our yard right after consuming their breakfast.”
Continue Reading Muldoon Dismissed – The End of an Error?