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
Removal
Federal Officer Removal Fails In California
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…
Removal, Severance & Rule 21
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
Eighth-Circuit Court Applies Fraudulent Misjoinder Doctrine to Deny Remand
As we recently noted when discussing snap removals, corporate defendants sued by individuals are generally at a disadvantage when forced to litigate in state rather than federal court. We know this and plaintiffs know this. It is why plaintiffs commonly file suit in state court, why corporate defendants typically remove cases to federal court…
Snap Removal Zapped by S.D. Cal.
[This post is not from the Reed Smith side of the blog.]
Litigation is a game. It is a game with real stakes and broad implications, but it is nonetheless a game played according to certain rules. As in all games, the participants—plaintiffs and defendants alike—try to maximize their advantage within those rules.
In litigation…
Western District of Louisiana Confirms that Defendants Can’t Destroy Diversity if They Are in a Different Case (LOL)
Guest Post – Fraudulent Joinder Of Defendant With No Connection To The Plaintiff Cannot Forestall Foray To Zantac MDL
Today’s guest post by Reed Smith’s Kevin Hara arises indirectly from the Zantac MDL, but addresses a recurring preliminary question of federal jurisdiction − fraudulent joinder. That issue, in turn, involves product identification (another problem in MDLs) and a pointer for pharmacies that want to avoid being involved in pharmaceutical litigation. As always our guest…
Reading Tea Leaves: Judge Brown Jackson’s Decisions Relevant To Product Liability
In the coming weeks, there are sure to be many articles looking at what Judge Brown Jackson has written and what that might suggest about the future jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court if she is confirmed. We will not predict what will happen in confirmation. We will, however, weigh in on what Judge…
Dictum and Technicalities Not Enough for Plaintiffs to Get Around Snap Removal
Today’s case is not a drug or device case, but a COVID nursing home case. We are not blogging on the underlying substance of the case but rather on plaintiff’s motion to remand after a snap removal. The case – Carroll v. Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services – is pending in the Western District of Pennsylvania. …
Plaintiff’s Bad Faith Waives Forum Defendant Rule
Defendants get accused of using snap removals as some sort of nefarious litigation tactic to thwart the forum defendant rule and drive cases into federal court. But all defendants do when they “snap” remove, is follow the law as written. In case you are new to this area of the law, we will stop here…