Allow us to wax nostalgic for a moment. Decades ago, an improbable series of events led us to Nashville, where we lived for several years, blissfully holding adulthood (and college) at bay and basking in all that the resident music industry provided. Last week, we had a perfectly joyous reunion with the dearest of friends
You cannot get too much of a good thing, so let’s celebrate another good jurisdiction case out of Missouri. (Prior examples can be found here and here, among others.) In Timpone v. Ethicon, 2019 WL 2525780 (E.D. Mo. June 19, 2019), the plaintiff lawyers cobbled together 99 plaintiffs (a pure CAFA evasion) to
Today’s guest post is by Tucker Ellis‘ Dick Dean, a longtime friend of the blog and outspoken advocate of using the Dormant Commerce Clause as a one-two punch in certain personal jurisdiction situations. This is his latest update on Dormant Commerce Clause developments. As always, our guest posters are 100% responsible for their
First, we apologize to our readers for not publishing this post earlier. It contains new information that we’ve known about for a couple of weeks, but we felt we had to keep it under wraps temporarily until Bexis filed an amicus curiae brief (last Friday) in one of the cases we discuss. Just as we
Missouri courts keep showing us surprisingly good things on the personal jurisdiction front. In Mitchell v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92621 (W.D. Missouri June 3, 2019), the plaintiff twice had a knee replacement implant while she lived in Kansas, then sued in Missouri, claiming that, after she moved there, that is
Personal jurisdiction being a key issue for us here at DDL Blog, we’ve talked a lot about the “minimum contacts” needed to establish jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Not many cases, however, analyze the two specific jurisdictional tests for minimum contacts. That’s likely because in most cases, it doesn’t make a difference whether you use
Bexis is going to have to give up saying that nothing good ever comes out of Missouri, because for the second time in just a few months we are reporting on a well-reasoned opinion from Missouri that comes to the right result for the right reasons. In Fullerton v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No.
This post comes from only the Cozen O’Connor side of the blog.
Margulis v. Stryker Corp., 2019 US Dist LEXIS 68555 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2019), is another case in which the plaintiffs filed a product liability claim in a court that did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants. In this instance,
This message is directed primarily to our overseas readers, and those who represent non-United States drug and medical device companies. Under FDA registration regulations, non-United States manufacturers (and other regulated companies) that import their regulated products into this country are required to appoint a domestic “agent” for regulatory purposes:
(i) Registration of foreign establishments
(1)
Last year, we posted about Pennsylvania going off the personal jurisdictional “deep end” in Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., 190 A.3d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2018), and Webb-Benjamin, LLC v. International Rug Group, LLC, 192 A.3d 1133 (Pa. Super. 2018). Well, unfortunately they’re still at it, and we’re afraid that the result could well be