As 2025 came to an end, we presented our loyal readers with our annual review of our ten worst decisions of the past year and our ten best decisions of the past year.
Now, in the new year, as we do each year, we’re pleased to announce that four (we hope) of your bloggers –
As we’ve discussed before, Florida’s offer of judgment statute has real teeth. Under the Florida statute (Fla. Stat. § 768.79), a defendant can recover its costs and attorney’s fees if the other side rejects the offer and ultimately recovers 25% less than the amount of the offer. The risk of paying the defendant’s attorney’s fees ought to be a meaningful deterrent to meritless claims.
In today’s decision, Jacob v. Mentor Worldwide LLP, 2025 WL 3134227 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2025) (rep. & rec.), the defendant made an offer of judgment under the Florida statute. But that didn’t deter the pro se plaintiff from pursuing her claim that a ruptured breast implant caused her to develop lupus-like symptoms. As we blogged about here, following a lengthy and tumultuous procedural history, the defendant ultimately prevailed on summary judgment. Prior to moving for summary judgment, the defendant made an offer of judgment of $3,500, which was the amount of its limited warranty for implant ruptures. After obtaining summary judgment, the defendant moved for its costs and attorney’s fees.
Continue Reading Chomp Chomp – Taking a Bite with Florida’s Offer of Judgment Statute
This post is from the non-Dechert and non-RS side of the Blog.
Depending on the time, issue, and players, the supposed epithets of “judicial activism” or “activist judge” can be thrown in just about every juridical direction. If we were to try to parse out the most common reason for the use of these terms
It feels like 20 years ago when we were doing almost monthly fen-phen diet drug trials in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The old timey-air-conditioning units in City Hall, along with subways rumbling underfoot, occasionally drowned out the testimony of plaintiff experts taking both scientific studies and internal company documents out of context. That
If you’re an in-house counsel working in the pharmaceutical, biotech, medical device, or digital health space (and still looking to complete CLE hours before year-end) we invite you to join Reed Smith’s annual Virtual Life Sciences CLE Week, taking place November 3–7, 2025.
This week-long event will feature a series of live webinars
As our loyal readers take a break from Halloween costume planning and other fall festivities, don’t forget to add registration for ACI’s Drug and Medical Device Litigation Conference, taking place December 3–4, to your to-do list.
As we mentioned, the good people at ACI have once again invited the blog to serve as a media
As defense lawyers, we have dealt many a time with plaintiffs’ attorneys who get away with just about everything. Failing to appear for hearings. Failing to oppose motions. Ignoring court orders. Ignoring discovery requests.
When unjustified, such acts of neglect should not be excused, but they often are. Courts are predisposed to decide cases on
There is a documentary out on the actor Charlie Sheen and it reminded us that, long before the current denizen of the White House crowed about “winning,” that was a staple of many bizarre rants by Sheen.
We’re not ranting, whether bizarrely or sanely, but it is nice to post about yet another defense win
To all in-house counsel working in the pharmaceutical, medical device, biotech, and digital health industries: if you’re looking to complete a few final CLE hours before the end of 2025, we invite you to attend Reed Smith’s annual Virtual Life Sciences CLE Week, taking place from November 3 through November 7, 2025.
This week-long event
We recently received a couple of links from old friends that we thought we’d pass along. Decades ago, Bexis and some of our other bloggers worked with Peter Grossi – then a senior partner at Arnold & Porter – defending fen-phen cases in Philadelphia and elsewhere. Peter is retired now, but he still teaches law