Even though lawyers who bill for their time defending product liability cases might favor those cases sticking around and plaintiffs getting many chances before inevitable dismissals with prejudice, we have been clear that we think plaintiffs should not get to re-plead around preemption once courts have defined the preempted path. There seems to be an
If you are of a certain age and are presented with a trio of items, we bet you sometimes add “Oh My” to the end of the list, as in Lions, and Tigers, and Bears-Oh My. Or, you think of other things that come in threes, such as the past and the present
We have often characterized judicial options as mixed bags, and a recent example of such a mixed bag can be found in Muldoon v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130020 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2024). The plaintiff claimed injuries from a ceramic-on-metal hip implant. He alleged that friction and wear caused the
The plaintiff in Pachecho v. Johnson & Johnson, 2024 WL 3260883 (M.D. Ga. Jul. 1, 2024), both over-pleaded her causes of action and under-pleaded their factual support (at least as to manufacturing defect). Both errors led the court do a little pruning. And while the cases continues, we hope in its uncluttered state, the
Plaintiffs’ attorneys are always looking for new ways to sue pharmaceutical companies. Under the banner of “no good deed goes unpunished,” plaintiffs in California recently sued a prescription drug manufacturer after they took advantage of the manufacturer’s program to help pay for a medicine widely used to treat arthritis and plaque psoriasis. There are no
This post is from the non-Reed Smith, non-Dechert , and non-Holland & Knight side of the blog. Everyone else is involved.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is a classic Clint Eastwood spaghetti Western where even the Good may not be all good. In California state court, a demurrer sustained is a defense win, right? Although there are some bright spots, In re Ranitidine Cases is one of the ugliest defense wins we have seen in a while, providing leave to amend and a roadmap for further expansion of the Gilead duty-to-innovate.Continue Reading Post-Gilead Heartburn in the California Ranitidine Litigation
A long time ago, when we were wet behind the ears and still nervous about the prospect of drafting and arguing dispositive motions, we worked for a senior partner who taught us that clear writing flowed from clear thinking. If that is true (and it is), then the opinion in McKnight v. Amazon.com Inc.
Generally, there is no medical basis for most claims on homeopathic product labels. But thousands if not millions of people use and find value in homeopathic products, apparently regardless of the fact that the science underpinning the products is shaky at best and possibly non-existent. However, just because one of these pseudo-remedies doesn’t work for
We have seen a number of consumer fraud class action cases brought over a range of fairly ticky tacky issues about OTC drugs and consumer products. California law and courts have been fairly favorable to these cases, which follow a pattern of a test plaintiff seeking to represent some large class because (s)he claims to
Today’s post is a short cautionary tale about Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) and plaintiff’s “one free shot” at amending a complaint. That rule provides:
(B) if the pleading is one to