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
We’ve already discussed many of the implications of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (“BMS”), for personal jurisdiction in mass tort cases. We’re not going to repeat any of that here. What we are proposing today is a relatively simple test that cuts the Gordian Knot surrounding
Child: “Can I have ice cream before dinner?”
Parent: “No”
Child: “What if it’s strawberry ice cream?”
Parent: “Still, no”
Child: “What if my teacher told me I had to eat ice cream for homework?”
Parent: “Still, no”
Child: “What if a monster ran in here right now and said I had to eat ice
Bexis recently filed a personal jurisdiction amicus brief in Pennsylvania – ground zero in the battle over general jurisdiction by “consent” due to a foreign corporation’s registration to do business in the state (technically, commonwealth). As is readily apparent from our 50-state survey on general jurisdiction by consent, most states reject such an expansive reading
Happy birthday, Bob Marley. (We mean the transcendent reggae singer, not the Maine comedian.) Now let’s get together and feel alright about another good personal jurisdiction decision, In re Pradaxa, No. CJC-16-004863 (Cal. Super. Ct. Jan. 31, 2019). The case strikes a blow against California litigation tourism. There were some awful decisions out of
Last week business took us to South Florida. Thank you business, as it was 50 degrees warmer in Miami than it was in our frigid Philly suburb. We always love the Sunshine State, but we especially love it in January and February. We love it, even though Florida is the target of many barbs about
We’ve been chronicling the troubles that defendants have been having in getting Pennsylvania courts to follow the Due Process requirements of personal jurisdiction since Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014). We lamented that Pennsylvania seemed to be going off the deep end while discussing Webb-Benjamin, LLC v. International Rug Group, LLC,