It’s now been about two-and-a-half years since the Supreme Court sided with forum-shopping plaintiffs in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023). Mallory was, in places 5-4, and elsewhere 4-1-4, and everywhere extremely fact specific – to the point of including a defendant-specific image of its Pennsylvania contacts. 600 U.S. at
Today’s guest post is from Dechert’s Chris McKeon who updates us on a rare application of the political question doctrine. As always, our guest posters deserve 100% of the praise (and any of blame) for their posts. Not that we expect the latter.
******
In our earlier post, we explored whether the political question
Not long ago we discussed Somerlot v. Jung, ___ A.3d ___, 2025 WL 2157391 (Pa. Super. July 30, 2025), as providing a potential antidote to some Mallory-inspired forum shopping. However, as we pointed out, Somerlot’s advantages were limited, because: (1) they required the pro-active use of forum selection clauses in advance of any litigation, and (2) would only be available to defendants who had the sort of relationship (directly or through distributors or doctors) with a plaintiff that would provide the opportunity to require such a clause. Thus, the Somerlot solution was not available to all, or even most, prescription medical product liability litigation.
However, over the last couple of months, Pennsylvania appellate decisions involving the more traditional concepts of forum non conveniens and venue have materially changed applicable law for the better, in terms of their availability as tools to combat post-Mallory forum shopping. Since Pennsylvania remains the only large state to allow general jurisdiction by consent in prescription medical product liability litigation, Pennsylvania law remains by far the most important for dealing with post-Mallory forum shopping.Continue Reading Recent Pennsylvania Appellate Decisions Can Combat Post-Mallory Forum Shopping
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
Add Connecticut to the list of Zantac multi-plaintiff losses, following the Florida multidistrict litigation (our “Zantac Chronicles” series of posts, and the Delaware Supreme Court). Only this time the several hundred Connecticut plaintiffs that were dismissed never even reached the absurd causation allegations that doomed the MDL and Delaware cases. Rather, these Connecticut plaintiffs didn’t even have a means to establish personal jurisdiction over the non-Connecticut defendants they sued. Bacher v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2025 WL 2463143 (Conn. Super. Aug. 22, 2025).Continue Reading Hundreds of Non-Resident Zantac Plaintiffs Run Out of Connecticut
We expect that none of our readers need reminding about the disastrous Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023), holding that Pennsylvania could constitutionally (under the Due Process Clause, at least) deem the mere act of registering to do business in Pennsylvania as “consent” that permits the Commonwealth’s courts to assert general personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations without any other contact.
At this point, Pennsylvania remains the only state with a general jurisdiction consent-by-registration statute that reaches manufacturers of prescription medical products. Illinois recently passed a more limited consent-by-registration statute, 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-209(b)(5), 805 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13.20(b), that applies only to “hazardous substances,” so our primary focus for Mallory problems remains Pennsylvania.
There’s been a Pennsylvania legal development that could help some defendants prevent Mallory inspired forum shopping. It’s a recent Pennsylvania state court medical malpractice venue decision – something that may fly under the radar for non-Pennsylvania, non-medmal defense counsel. Of course, we at the blog live for bringing this kind of case to our defense colleagues’ attention (longtime readers may remember our early advocacy of what is now called “snap removal”).Continue Reading Recent Pennsylvania Decision Suggests Partial, Longer Term Response to Our Mallory Problem
An appellate court in Texas filed an opinion last week that very helpfully defines and applies the standard for specific personal jurisdiction under a factual scenario that is extremely common in our line of work—a plaintiff trying to sue a foreign company that sells products (medical devices) in the U.S. through a U.S.-based affiliate. The
Surely, you’ve heard the definition of insanity as repeating the same conduct but expecting different results. You might also have heard that Einstein said it, though that might not be right – not even relatively right.
It is definitely not right for plaintiffs to keep filing meritless actions even after they keep receiving benchslaps. Maybe
Every week Bexis circulates an email with new, bloggable cases, but sometimes there are more new decisions than blogging days, and cases get passed over.
Here are three (relatively) recent examples
Gonzalez v. International Medical Devices, Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2025 WL 2054361 (W.D. Tex. June 20, 2025), arose from the plaintiff’s apparent
When you write a few hundred or more posts for a legal blog devoted to the somewhat niche subject of drug and device product liability law, you look for themes or hooks to keep both the writer and presumptive readers engaged. The themes may be fairly obvious based on the date of the post, the