We often say, as we said last week, that this blog is not designed to do plaintiffs’ work for them. Thus, we are a heckuva lot more likely to trumpet pro-defense rulings than wrong ones. Still, it is important to know the problem areas out there, and today’s case displays one of them. It
As consumers, and connoisseurs, of personal jurisdiction precedent, we were interested in the latest turn in Thalidomide-related litigation in Pennsylvania. You can see our prior posts about the former – and extremely time barred – personal injury litigation, here and here. The personal jurisdiction angle was mentioned more recently in a 360 (that is,
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.
Today’s case involves several multi-plaintiff complaints filed in California involving out-of-state plaintiffs who allege they suffered an injury from using out-of-state defendants’ prescription drug product that was distributed by a company headquartered in California. Afraid you’ve fallen through a portal that transported you back
As consumers, and connoisseurs, of personal jurisdiction precedent, we write today to consider the latest jurisdictional mess that has arisen, this time in talc litigation. Two courts, deciding the same jurisdictional issue on the same set of facts in the same week, have reached diametrically opposed decisions. The current contretemps concerns “Shimmer” – a minor
We have an update today on a case from Idaho on which we blogged late last year. The issue then was innovator liability, and we gave our enthusiastic stamp of approval to the court’s rejection of “product liability” where the innovator manufacturer neither made nor sold the product that allegedly harmed the plaintiff. As the
Earlier this year we posted about the decision on defendant’s motion to dismiss in Crockett v. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2020 WL 433367 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2020). We called it a “patchwork” decision, meaning we generally liked it but it wasn’t a seamless defense victory. Well, the court ruled on another defense motion just this
For as long as we’ve been practicing law, litigation tourists plaintiffs, from far and wide, have flocked to bring suit in the downstate Illinois counties of Madison and St. Clair, despite their claims having nothing to do with the state of Illinois. Yesterday, the Illinois Supreme Court – in Essure litigation – recognized that this
Sometimes the DDL blog is ahead of the curve. On more than one occasion we’ve advanced the idea that lack of personal jurisdiction should be a good defense to innovator liability in a post-BMS world. After all, BMS held that there was no specific jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claim just because the defendant allegedly
We’ve blogged several times before how the logic of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), dooms nationwide class actions against corporations – except in jurisdictions where they are “at home.” BMS held, essentially, that a non-resident plaintiff could not sue a non-resident
Here are a couple of things that happened recently (and no, we don’t mean a travel ban on Europe or the NBA cancelling the rest of its season). They’re not related, but separate posts would be too short.
First, last November we warned our colleagues that it was time to start thinking of alternative grounds