Photo of Eric Hudson

Sometimes opinions go entirely in favor of the defense, analyzing numerous, independent bases for the dismissal of a complaint.  Today’s decision, Doyle v. Bayer Corp., 2025 WL 1666261 (W.D. Wash. June 12, 2025), is definitely one of those. It is a perfect example of what should happen when a plaintiff files a generic, bare-bones complaint in a prescription medical product case.

Plaintiff had an intrauterine device (IUD) implanted, and after about two years was informed that the IUD had likely been expelled from her body.  More than ten years after that, plaintiff obtained an x-ray for a persistent cough.  Doctors suspected that a shadow shown on the x-ray in the plaintiff’s abdomen was the IUD.  Plaintiff subsequently had surgery to remove the IUD, and she and her husband then filed suit against the manufacturer. Plaintiffs asserted five common law product liability claims and a sixth for unfair business practices.Continue Reading Belt and Suspenders – Dismissal in the Western District of Washington

Photo of Michelle Yeary

The term “kitchen sink complaint” is not meant as a compliment. And the court did not use it as one in describing the proposed amended complaint in Ehlers v. Abiomed, Inc., — F. Supp. 3d –, 2025 WL 2029662, *9 (E.D. Mo. Jul. 21, 2025). The term refers to the tendency of some attorneys

Photo of Eric Alexander

This is from the non-Dechert and non-RS portion of the Blog.

We used to post about defense wins in litigation over both branded and generic ranitidine fairly often.  The MDL in the Southern District of Florida systematically knocked down all of plaintiffs’ theories based on the lack of legal support (e.g., preemption) and lack of

Photo of Lisa Baird

Readers of this blog know that we love preemption in all its forms, including preemption based in the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (“PREP”) Act, 42 U.S.C. §247d-6d.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a needlessly politicized public health emergency, the PREP Act provided important liability protections to health care providers, vaccine manufacturers, and others working hard

Photo of Stephen McConnell

Today we offer a peek at A. Twerski, “A Quarter Century after the Products Liability Restatement: Reflections,” 90 Brooklyn L. Rev. 1027 (Summer 2025).  The “Restatement” under discussion is the Restatement (Third), Products Liability, and the “A. Twerski” is, of course, Aaron Twerski, the sole surviving reporter for that Restatement. Professor Twerski has written this retrospective law review

Today we address two more cooked-up—literally—Valisure cases, Bodunde v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00985-JLT-SAB, 2025 WL 1411306 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2025), and Navarro v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00290-JLT-SAB, 2025 WL 1411406 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2025).

These two cases involve legally identical magistrate recommendations that Defendant’s motions to dismiss

Photo of Eric Alexander

We really cannot say whether chicken by any other name would smell as sweet or even as chickeny.  While we do not compare ourselves to the Bard, we can say that cultivated chicken meat cannot be sold in Florida to allow any such olfactory comparison there.  The manufacturer of just such a product challenged the