This post is from the non-Dechert side of the blog.
After more than a month away at trial, we probably should not have picked a case that hit so close to home, so to speak. Spear v. Atrium Medical Corp., — F. Supp. 3d –, 2022 WL 3357485 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2022), is
Whaley v. Merck & Co., 2022 WL 1153151 (S.D. Cal. April 12, 2022), is an ugly example of overly grasping personal jurisdiction permitted in the service of facilitating an even worse overreach by a state’s substantive law. We’ve repeatedly criticized the substantive theory – innovator liability – because (among other things) it exposes manufacturers to liability for claimed defects in competing generic drugs from which the defendants received no benefit (quite the opposite), and did not control what their competitors did. Indeed, innovator liability strays so far from traditional product liability that it creates personal jurisdictional problems – since the target defendant often has no jurisdictional contacts whatever with the forum state, since it didn’t even sell the product that allegedly caused (very attenuated) harm.Continue Reading California Court Overreaches on Personal Jurisdiction
California’s courts have never met a case they did not like. Or, more precisely, they have never met a case over which they would not exercise jurisdiction if arguably supported by the facts, and even when not supported by the facts. We are exaggerating, of course, but not by much. You will recall that the
While two-fer Tuesday has that nice alliterative ring to it – three-fer Tuesday gives you more bang for your buck. Pleadings, preemption, and personal jurisdiction. Maybe trifecta-Tuesday?
Plaintiff in Froman v. Coopersurgical, Inc., 2022 US Dist LEXIS 120725, *2-3 (N.D.AL Jul. 8, 2022) filed her complaint alleging that she suffered an injury when a
As we have previously observed, limits on personal jurisdiction matter because the outcome of litigation is heavily influenced by where a case is filed. Since the Supreme Court confirmed the narrow confines of general jurisdiction in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011), and Daimler AG v. Bauman,
We’re pragmatic geeks. That means we love personal-jurisdiction issues. This year alone we’ve reported on personal-jurisdiction cases here, here, and here. And then yesterday we did it again. Although the decision we discussed yesterday, English v. Avon Products, Inc., — N.Y.S.3d —-, 2022 WL 1787160 (N.Y. App. 2022), was unfortunate in
This is called the Drug and Device Law blog, but every once in a while we discuss cases that involve neither drugs nor devices. Usually that is because those cases offer lessons applicable in our subject matter area. Or – and this is a confession – sometimes those cases are simply fun. For example, we
Yesterday the Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. – a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case holding that registering to do business in a state does not by itself subject a corporation to general jurisdiction in that state. 266 A.3d 541 (Pa. 2021), discussed here.
A post-sale duty to warn is almost oxymoronic. If you think about a typical warnings case, the focus is on whether the manufacturer/seller had notice of a potential risk before the product left its control (or prescribed to the plaintiff), and if so, whether that risk was adequately conveyed to the plaintiff. The question we
Litigation tourist plaintiffs have been taking it on the chin lately when it comes to personal jurisdiction. Here’s another example. Durham v. LG Chem, Ltd., 2022 WL 274498 (11th Cir. Jan. 31, 2022), is not a drug and device case and not precedential (note: the Fed. Appx. reporter is no more), but is nonetheless