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
When we see a case title with the same name on both sides of the v, we think of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, the will contest described by Dickens in Bleak House. That fictional case dragged on for years and throughout the course of the book, ending only when legal expenses devoured all the
Well, at least that’s true when we are blogging about defense wins. And this week, we have another good gadolinium case. This time from New York.
Just a quick reminder – gadolinium is a contrast agent that is injected into a patient before undergoing an MRI. The gadolinium is intended to pass through the body,
Don’t stop us if you’ve heard this before, because you have. A plaintiff brings an lawsuit over injuries allegedly from a medical device, sues not only the company that made and marketed the device but also a parent company that did not make or market the device, said parent moves for dismissal for want
Today the Supreme Court agreed to take another shot at “stream of commerce” personal jurisdiction in two automotive cases. Here are the case pages at SCOTUSBlog: Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer, No. 19-369, and Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, No. 19-368. The decisions being appealed are Bandemer
One slushy morning this week, we found ourselves searching for our favorite black duck boots. We found one and put in on, then, after much rummaging in the dark recesses of our closet, found a second. At this point, we were on the edge of missing our train, so we put on the second shoe
The actual words written by Shakespeare and spoken by Antonio in The Tempest are “Whereof what’s past is prologue.” Antonio is trying to convince Sebastian to murder his father the king and take the crown for himself. When Shakespeare wrote these words, he intended Antonio to convey to Sebastian that everything that had happened in
We are writing about a case that does not involve drugs or devices because it runs through some of the very same personal jurisdiction issues we have warned about post-Bauman. Adams v. NHL, MDL No, 14-2551, Case No. 15-cv-00472 (SRN/JSM), 2019 WL 5079980 (D. Minn. Oct. 10, 2019), is a case from the