Sometimes we read a decision in favor of the defense that makes it seem like getting the good result was easy. The court summarily disposes of plaintiff’s arguments, adopts the defendant’s reasoning, and might throw in a comment or two about things the plaintiff could have done—but didn’t. But getting those good results is almost never easy. The result is usually a reflection of good lawyering, hard work, and attention to detail (and of course, even with all those things plus favorable law, the client still may not get the result it deserves). Today’s decision, Giddens v. Tift Reg’l Health Sys., 2026 WL 555070 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 27, 2026), reads like it was easy, but we suspect that was because of the work that went into it by defense counsel. So, as we roll into our observance of the Memorial Day holiday and perhaps look forward to some legitimate “easy living” over the weekend, we’ll tip our hats to our friends and colleagues who do the diligent work on behalf of their clients.
Continue Reading Fraudulent Joinder and Some Easy Living in the Middle District of GeorgiaFraudulent Joinder
Even the Darkest Night Will End and the Sun Will Rise
As we head into the longest night of the year, we wade into an MDL decision addressing fraudulent misjoinder. We previously posted about some unfavorable happenings in the Philips CPAP MDL, and today’s decision continues that unfortunate trend. In re Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, & Mechanical Ventilator Products Litigation, 2025 WL 3534807 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2025). But as we reach the winter solstice this weekend, we know that the days will get longer, the sun will shine brighter, and we’re sure to see some positive developments more to our liking.
The decision involves the unusual combination of medical device and environmental exposure claims against different defendants. The complaint alleged that exposure to ethylene oxide through a CPAP device caused plaintiff’s acute myeloid leukemia and, ultimately, death. But the complaint also claimed that the plaintiff lived near a manufacturing facility that emitted ethylene oxide, and that exposure to those emissions contributed to the development of the disease and death. The CPAP defendant was diverse; the environmental emissions defendants were not. Philips (the diverse, CPAP defendant) removed and claimed the defendants in the environmental claims were fraudulently misjoined.
Continue Reading Even the Darkest Night Will End and the Sun Will RiseN.D. Cal. Remands Case because Plaintiff Could Amend to Add Non-Diverse Defendant
Removal-rama continues. Art (if that is what you can call blogposting) mimics life. We have not just been blogging about removal cases lately, we’ve also been removing cases to federal court with startling frequency. And it’s been working. Twice, even with a removal basis that might be characterized as a jump ball, plaintiffs have not…
Knee Implant Plaintiff Cannot Kick Case out of Federal Court by Fraudulently Joining Local Supplier
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…
Depo-Provera MDL Court Shoots Down Pharmacy Liability Claims Brought to Defeat Diversity
It’s MLB playoff season and once again the Milwaukee Brewers are at the top of the field. They, along with the Philadelphia Phillies and the Chicago Cubs, have all secured a home-field advantage in the playoffs. That means those teams have the tactical edge of getting the final at-bat in each inning and overall. They…
Snap! Sometimes the Third Time Isn’t a Charm
Snap removal is one of the few ways that defendants can counter plaintiffs’ efforts at forum shopping. When a case analyzes snap removal and expressly adopts fraudulent misjoinder in the Third Circuit, you know it gets our attention.
Today’s decision, Paddock v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 2025 WL 1908806 (D. Del. July 11, 2025), is a report and recommendation denying remand following the defendant’s snap removal. The case involves claims by multiple plaintiffs that the defendant wrongfully promoted the off-label use of terbutaline (an asthma drug) to treat pre-term labor in pregnant women, and that the plaintiffs’ children developed autism as a result of their ingestion of the drug during pregnancy.
Continue Reading Snap! Sometimes the Third Time Isn’t a CharmFraudulent Joinder and PMA Preemption Deliver Knock Out in C.D. Cal.
E.D.N.Y. Finds Fraudulent Joinder of Sales Representative with No Connection to Plaintiff
Plaintiffs naming local sales representatives—or doctors, or pharmacies, or distributors, or retailers—as defendants to try to destroy diversity and avoid federal court is nothing new. Unfortunately, defendants bear a “heavy burden” proving fraudulently joinder. In fact, our last post on the topic was in February 2023, demonstrating that successes on this issue are few…
More from the Zantac MDL – Census Registries and Enforcement of Forum Selection Certifications
This post is not from the Reed Smith, Dechert, or Holland & Knight side of the blog.
We’re pretty sure no one teaches about MDL census registries in law school. They’re a relatively new creation, and we previously blogged about them here. Essentially, registries create a mechanism where plaintiffs’ counsel can park potential claims without paying a filing fee while records are collected to determine if the claimant can establish Rule 11 basics like product use and injury. Records are typically collected by a vendor—for which the MDL defendants pay half the costs. The benefit defendants receive is a commitment that, if the claim is ultimately filed, it has to be filed in the MDL or other federal court.
Continue Reading More from the Zantac MDL – Census Registries and Enforcement of Forum Selection CertificationsN.D. Ohio Rejects Amendment that Would Have Destroyed Federal Jurisdiction in MDL Remand Case
Some personal injury plaintiffs will do almost anything to avoid federal court. And by “some,” we mean pretty much all. We freely subscribe to the idea that the plaintiffs’ bar is replete with bad motives on this issue. We are from the Dorothy Parker school of, “If you can’t find something nice to say about…