It is a truism in product liability matters that plaintiffs love state courts, whereas defense lawyers and our clients much prefer federal court. There are reasons for this. Twombly and Iqbal pleading standards are more rigorous than the pleading standards in many state courts. Federal judges often have fewer cases and more clerks than state
When a defendant removes a case to federal court on the basis that the case presents federal questions, what happens if the plaintiff amends the complaint to remove all references to federal law, leaving only state-law claims? The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that once the plaintiff amends to delete all federal claims, a federal
We have written many times, as recently as Tuesday, that the practice of plaintiff lawyers to include patently inapplicable claims among a laundry list of causes of action asserted in complaints is lazy, if not problematic. It is rare to see a plaintiff self-regulate and cull down an overbroad pleading without a defense motion
It could be a first-year civil procedure question: The removability of a case to federal court is determined as of the moment of removal – nothing thereafter can defeat removal. See, e.g., St. Paul Mercury Indemnity. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 292 (1938) (a plaintiff cannot “deprive the district court of jurisdiction” “after removal” “by amendment of his pleadings”); 14A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure §3721, at 213 (2d ed. 1985) (once “a case has been properly removed . . . plaintiff[s] cannot successfully do anything to defeat federal jurisdiction and force a remand”).
That is precisely what the petitioner in a pending United States Supreme Court matter, Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, No. 23-677, is asking the Court to hold. Oral argument in the Royal Canin case is occurring today. For more details, including copies of all pleadings, see the SCOTUSblog page.Continue Reading Under the Radar SCOTUS Removal Issue
We wrote a few days ago about a favorable ruling on a state human tissue shield statute in Heitman v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc. (N.D. Fla.). That case gave us another good procedural ruling to share, rejecting a trick we see all too often: an attempt to join a non-diverse defendant post-removal.Continue Reading N.D. Fla. Rejects Post-Removal Attempt to Amend to Defeat Diversity
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
This post is not from the Reed Smith, Dechert, or Holland & Knight side of the blog.
We’re pretty sure no one teaches about MDL census registries in law school. They’re a relatively new creation, and we previously blogged about them here. Essentially, registries create a mechanism where plaintiffs’ counsel can park potential claims without paying a filing fee while records are collected to determine if the claimant can establish Rule 11 basics like product use and injury. Records are typically collected by a vendor—for which the MDL defendants pay half the costs. The benefit defendants receive is a commitment that, if the claim is ultimately filed, it has to be filed in the MDL or other federal court.Continue Reading More from the Zantac MDL – Census Registries and Enforcement of Forum Selection Certifications
Much like the placement of a comma, differences in capitalization can affect meaning quite a bit. Take PrEP and PREP. The former refers to the use of certain antiviral medications for pre-exposure prophylaxis to HIV, which has been hailed as a paradigm shift in treating HIV. We recall that FDA was so impressed with
It is a simple fact that product liability plaintiffs almost always prefer state court and product liability defendants almost always prefer federal court. This is a major reason why removal fights, sometimes intertwined with personal jurisdiction fights, happen so often in these types of cases. Another reason is that product liability plaintiff lawyers like to
Our recent fraudulent joinder post ended with the observation, “[h]aving found fraudulent or procedural misjoinder, the court ‘sever[ed] the action’ against the healthcare provider ‘so as to preserve [the manufacturer’s] right to removal in the remaining action.’” (quoting In re Stryker Rejuvenate & ABG II Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, 2023 WL 6514996, at *3 (D. Minn. 2023)).
That started us thinking about other uses of severance of non-indispensable parties to preserve diversity – particularly, as in the Rejuvenate case, medical malpractice defendants in product liability litigation – to preserve federal diversity jurisdiction. We have discussed several individual decisions that successfully employed Rule 21 in this fashion: here (discussing Mayfield v. London Women’s Care, PLLC, 2015 WL 3440492 (E.D. Ky. May 28, 2015)); here (discussing In re Yasmin & Yaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, 2011 WL 2746086 (S.D. Ill. July 11, 2011)); here (discussing Stone v. Zimmer, Inc., 2009 WL 1809990 (S.D. Fla. 2009)); here (discussing DeGidio v. Centocor, Inc., 2009 WL 1867676 (N.D. Ohio June 29, 2009)); and here (discussing Joseph v. Baxter International, Inc., 614 F. Supp.2d 868, 872 (N.D. Ohio 2009)).Continue Reading Removal, Severance & Rule 21