Albahae v. Olaplex Holdings, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105361 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2023), is not a drug/device case, but is a very good case severing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 an attempt to join 101 plaintiffs on claims involving their use of the defendant’s hair care products. To be specific, there
We have a case going on where the plaintiff wants to preclude the use of a term found in his medical records to describe something that happened to him in the past that is highly relevant to the claims and injuries in the case. Instead of using the actual term, which was also used in
Plaintiffs like to file complaints that join multiple plaintiffs in a single action. They think that doing so gives them added leverage in settlement discussions. They think that because they know that if they get to a jury, a jury is—no matter the evidence—more likely to find in favor of the plaintiffs and against the
This is actually Rachel Weil’s post, but she is having password problems, so Bexis is doing the actual posting
***********
We spent last weekend in a shore house with extended family members (all vaccinated, of course) gathered to celebrate a cousin’s milestone birthday. Since we had last gathered, babies had been born, the family matriarch
We’ve griped about multi-plaintiff consolidated trials for years on this blog, both generally, and in the specific context of prescription medical product liability litigation. Now the issue is before the Supreme Court in one of the most grotesque miscarriages of justice that we’ve seen – and several of us practice in Philadelphia – a
Have you ever gone to a party and felt unwelcome? Neither have we, but the moving party in Bartis v. Biomet, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-00657, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21048 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 4, 2021), sure must have felt that way. She tried to join and intervene in a consolidated set of prosthetic hip-related lawsuits
We have always wondered why judges are hesitant to sever the claims of plaintiffs who never should have joined their claims together in the first place. You know what we mean—multiple plaintiffs, sometimes dozens of them, who join their claims together in one complaint based only on the allegation that they used the same or
Diversity jurisdiction has been on our minds a lot lately. Last week, we wrote about a plaintiff who unsuccessfully tried to steer under the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement. As John Adams said, “facts are stubborn things,” and the existence of medical bills in excess of $75,000 refuted the plaintiff’s remand motion and permitted the
Sometimes we find it simply best to start with the facts. The facts of Graham v. Mentor World Wide LLC, 2019 WL 3253185 (E.D. MO Jul. 19, 2019) are: