In the third of the three significant decisions issued in the In re Zantac MDL, No. 2924, on New Year’s Eve, preemption prevailed again – this time barring claims asserted against drug retailers and pharmacists, both branded and generic. In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2020 WL 7864585 (S.D.
February is a fine time to cuddle up with a good book or a short case. Take a look at In re Xarelto Products Liability Litigation, 2021 WL 493069 (E.D. La. Feb. 10, 2021). Pro se plaintiffs brought a lawsuit claiming their relative died from a brain hemorrhage caused by Xarelto. Their case was
We are six weeks into 2021 and for most, it stills feels a lot like 2020. We are starting to hear about restrictions being lifted or modified to allow for more . . . well more anything. But that’s happening just as almost the entire country is being overwhelmed by a polar vortex. Ice, snow,
By now our beef with Multidistrict Litigations has become monotonous: plaintiff lawyers assemble enormous inventories of weak cases, then contort the bellwether pool to ensure that only their best cases go to trial. We remember an oral argument in front of an MDL judge in which we employed statistics to show that a representative MDL
Sometimes it really is as easy as A, B, C or as simple as 1, 2, 3. Where the FDA has set specific rules for the type of labeling claims a manufacturer can make and the manufacturer abides by those rules, claims by plaintiffs seeking to require something different are preempted. Just like do, re,
As 2020 ended, our loyal readers joined us in reviewing our worst decisions of the past year – true superspreaders of litigation against our clients – and our best decisions of the past year, which we termed “tort pandemic countermeasures.”
As we do each year, we’re pleased to announce that four of your bloggers
Late last year we awarded our #10 spot on our Worst of 2020 post to In re Valsartan, Losartan, & Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation, 2020 WL 7418006 (D.N.J. Dec. 18, 2020) (“VLI”). At that point the decision was brand new, and we promised a more in-depth analysis. Here it is.
VLI fits
A couple of times in recent weeks we have discussed pelvic mesh cases where a central issue was whether the cases were time-barred by a statute of limitations or repose. (See here and here.) There is a reason why this issue crops up persistently. The pelvic mesh litigation started off as a mass tort
Plaintiffs’ lawyers, now used to soliciting litigation from municipal governments, labor union health and welfare funds, and Medicare assistance plans, have been trying the same thing with Indian tribes (note: we don’t care much for “Indian” as it reflects Columbus’ 500-year-old navigational error, so we opt for the more accurate Canadian term – “First Nations”).
It’s all too much. Mass torts, especially those involving drugs or devices, suffer from a severe case of too-muchness. Too much of what? Cases, defendants, prevaricating experts, documents taken out of context, appeals to outrage, eye-watering verdicts, etc. In the good old days when people got together physically, not virtually, for parties (especially this time