Judge Tjoflat did it up in a big way a couple of weeks ago in Lowery v. Alabama Power Company, Nos. 06-16324 & 06-16325, slip op. (11th Cir. Apr. 11, 2007). We’re not sure if we’re providing a link to the case itself or to the “opinions” page of the Eleventh Circuit website; if we’ve
Search results for: cafa
The Jurisdictional Amount Under CAFA
We were excited two years ago when we read the legislative history of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). The Senate Judiciary Committee clearly intended CAFA to reverse the traditional burden of proof on remand motions. Before CAFA, the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction — the defendant who removed the case —…
CAFA and choice of law
We read at the Mass Tort Litigation Blog about Professor Samuel Issacharoff’s forthcoming article on choice of law in class actions that will appear in the Columbia Law Review. Professor Issacharoff apparently argues that the enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act lends strength to the position that courts should apply a defendant-corporation’s home state…
Judge Weinstein proposes amending CAFA
In an order entered on Thursday, December 7, in the Zyprexa litigation, Judge Weinstein requested further briefing on a motion to remand. Along the way, he noted his frustration with the fact that the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 allows removal only of certain class actions and mass actions, but not of all state…
Medicare Secondary Payor Troll Bounced from MDL
A notorious class-action troll took it on the chin in MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Exactech, Inc., 2023 WL 4066635 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2023) (“MSPRC”). The troll’s modus operandi is to claim it has assignments of rights from certain fellow-traveling Medicare Advantage Organizations (“MAOs”) and try to turn those into class actions against targeted defendants – usually primary insurers. A search for this plaintiff’s name (MSP) appearing in the same opinion as this assignor (Summacare) pulled up no fewer than 23 hits on Westlaw.
In MSPRC, however, this prolific litigant tried to branch out beyond its usual Medicare Secondary Payor claims into more general third-party payor (“TPP”) litigation. That didn’t turn out well for the troll. Indeed, MSPRC looks like the litigation equivalent of the troll being knocked out with its own club.Continue Reading Medicare Secondary Payor Troll Bounced from MDL
Pennsylvania Law, Federal Rules, and FDA Standards
Starting with our comprehensive post lambasting Schrecengost v. Coloplast Corp., 425 F. Supp.3d 448 (W.D. Pa. 2019), for ignoring 75 years of hitherto unbroken Pennsylvania precedent and allowing a “strict liability” design defect claim against an FDA-regulated prescription medical product, we have both chronicled and opposed the other side’s attempt to infiltrate strict liability into Pennsylvania litigation involving such products (primarily medical devices). That attempt disregards seven Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions between 1948 (Henderson) and 2014 (Lance), as well as the Pennsylvania Superior Court (an intermediate appellate court in Pennsylvania) (Creazzo), all rejecting application of strict liability principles to prescription medical products. For the gory details, see the prior post.Continue Reading Pennsylvania Law, Federal Rules, and FDA Standards
Interesting Cy Pres Appeal
From the beginning of the Blog we’ve made our position on “cy pres” class action distributions plain – we hate them. We had hopes that the United States Supreme Court would deep six the whole concept in Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019), but as we guessed here,…
The 402A Plot Thickens in Pennsylvania
Recently, in the context of an IVC filter case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:
1. Under Pennsylvania law, must a plaintiff bringing a negligent design claim against a prescription medical device manufacturer prove that the device was too harmful to be used by anyone, or may
…
Spoliation Is A Two-Way Street, Or Should Be
We are careful when discussing discovery sanctions, particularly spoliation, for a simple reason. The companies we represent that make medical products tend to have allegations about failing to produce discoverable information in the course of the litigation against them. Indeed, there is a style of litigating against drug and device companies, and other corporate defendants,…
Reflections on Turning 65
Bexis just turned 65 (on 1/25/2021) – the classic retirement age. That’s an occasion to look back and evaluate what’s gone on over the course of an entire legal career. So how have we done, as defense lawyers, over the course of our entire careers, at our primary job – which is to prevail for…