This is a defense blog. Are we biased? Yes, we are. We come by that bias honestly, via temperament, principle, and client loyalty. We are happy to report on defense wins. If we report at all on plaintiff wins, it will be grudgingly and typically accompanied by heaping helpings of regrets and criticisms.
Have we
As we head into the longest night of the year, we wade into an MDL decision addressing fraudulent misjoinder. We previously posted about some unfavorable happenings in the Philips CPAP MDL, and today’s decision continues that unfortunate trend. In re Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, & Mechanical Ventilator Products Litigation, 2025 WL 3534807 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2025). But as we reach the winter solstice this weekend, we know that the days will get longer, the sun will shine brighter, and we’re sure to see some positive developments more to our liking.
The decision involves the unusual combination of medical device and environmental exposure claims against different defendants. The complaint alleged that exposure to ethylene oxide through a CPAP device caused plaintiff’s acute myeloid leukemia and, ultimately, death. But the complaint also claimed that the plaintiff lived near a manufacturing facility that emitted ethylene oxide, and that exposure to those emissions contributed to the development of the disease and death. The CPAP defendant was diverse; the environmental emissions defendants were not. Philips (the diverse, CPAP defendant) removed and claimed the defendants in the environmental claims were fraudulently misjoined.Continue Reading Even the Darkest Night Will End and the Sun Will Rise
Today’s guest post is from Reed Smith‘s Matt Jacobson. His post is not (primarily) about British comedy, but rather about fraudulent joinder. The specific topic is most interesting if you practice in Wisconsin, but as to removal generally, it introduces a provision of the statute that many of our readers will be unfamiliar
If it’s Wednesday, it’s plainly time to talk about removal. Today’s case, In re Depo Provera Prods Liab. Litigation, 2025 WL 3252445 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2025), upholds one of the defense bar’s favorite procedural maneuvers,snap removal. The case was snapped in California, in the Ninth Circuit, and transferred to the Multidistrict Litigation in
Defendants know that the quickest way to level an uneven playing field is to… well… sprint. And few procedural tools reward nimble defense work quite like snap removal—the perfectly valid act of removing a case to federal court before the forum defendant is served. Plaintiffs call it gamesmanship. We call it reading the statute. Yet
Snap removal is one of the few ways that defendants can counter plaintiffs’ efforts at forum shopping. When a case analyzes snap removal and expressly adopts fraudulent misjoinder in the Third Circuit, you know it gets our attention.
Today’s decision, Paddock v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 2025 WL 1908806 (D. Del. July 11, 2025), is a report and recommendation denying remand following the defendant’s snap removal. The case involves claims by multiple plaintiffs that the defendant wrongfully promoted the off-label use of terbutaline (an asthma drug) to treat pre-term labor in pregnant women, and that the plaintiffs’ children developed autism as a result of their ingestion of the drug during pregnancy.Continue Reading Snap! Sometimes the Third Time Isn’t a Charm
Mulitdistrict litigations – both federal MDLs and their state-court equivalents – sound like noble endeavors. The concept is simple: consolidate similar lawsuits under one judge to streamline proceedings. This, in theory, avoids contradictory rulings and saves court resources. But when you pan out past the injured plaintiffs and mountains of medical records, you’ll spot one
We have learned, through repeated harsh experience (e.g., Mallory, Wullschleger, Harrington) that while the current Supreme Court can be described as “conservative,” that hardly means that it is pro-business. Indeed, it appears that when the issue is p-side forum-shopping, the Notorious RBG (opponent of all things preemption) was far more
The passage of time can change our collective perception of what is normal and accepted. By way of a somewhat contrived example, back in 1989, there was a popular cross-over rap song called “Just a Friend” by Biz Markie. It was catchy, entertaining, and a contrast to so-called “gangsta rap” that scared the Parents Music
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