Here is an interesting order that recently emerged from the Benicar multi-district litigation. Certain plaintiffs’ counsel (identified by name in the order) represent about 450 “plaintiffs who have settled their claims against defendants in exchange for a monetary payment.” In re Benicar (Olmesartan) Products Liability Litigation, 2019 WL 6271285, at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 22,
The opinion, Schrecengost v. Coloplast Corp., 2019 WL 6465398 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2019), recently “predicted” that Pennsylvania would allow strict liability design and warning defect claims in cases involving prescription medical products. Id. at *11-13. In so doing Schrecengost was not only wrong, but loud wrong. First, without even a serious discussion, Schrecengost
For a few years, it seemed like we were blogging about the Weeks case every few months. Beyond providing an opportunity for temporal quippery, Weeks caught our attention because it was one of the holdout cases against the tide of cases rejecting Conte, the crappy California case that invented innovator liability. After the
The Holiday season is also the cinema season. We’re giddy about movies right now. Today sees the release of the trailer for No Time to Die, the 25th Bond film (counting only the “official” EON productions – sorry about that, Casino Royale (1967) and Never Say Never Again (1983)). No Time to Die (hereinafter
We’ve used the phrase “one-two punch” before in the blog to describe a pair of legal decisions concerning the same product. Usually, our clients have been on the winning side, but that’s not always true, particularly in cases coming out of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In November, the Pennsylvania appellate courts, in gynecomastia litigation, dealt defendants two
In prescription medical product liability litigation, size matters. It doesn’t matter as much as having good products and winning arguments, but when the name of the game on the other side is to drag defendants into pro-plaintiff forums and then use every procedural trick in the book to try to “ring the bell” on some
We are rounding the final curve of the Fall academic calendar, so now come the sessions in the litigation class we teach at Penn Law when we discuss story-telling. It is not as if we have anything novel to say. The best (most attention-getting, understandable, memorable, and persuasive) stories are ones we have already heard
This post is a follow-up of sorts to our “Stupid Expert Tricks” post. That post dealt with dodgy games that our opponents’ experts play. This post is about adding injury to insult, that is, when the plaintiffs try to make us pay for the privilege of dealing with those tricks.
Now both our
This appeared on September 3, 2019, on the Missouri Supreme Court’s list of “Writs and Other Original Proceedings”:
SC98009 State ex rel. Monsanto Company, Relator, vs. The Honorable Michael K. Mullen, Respondent.
Petition for writ of prohibition sustained. Preliminary writ ordered to issue returnable to Court en banc within fifteen days.
(Emphasis
Bexis is updating the preemption chapter of his prescription medical product liability treatise, and with Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668 (U.S. 2019), being so new, he collected a bunch of law firm blogs/client updates about the case to see what potential issues other lawyers out there might