Sort of like hail in Alabama. It happens, but when it does it’s an event. Not like say picking a perfect NCAA March Madness bracket (1 in 2.4 trillion). Maybe more like the chance of getting struck by lightning in a lifetime (1 in 13,000). In any case, a California trial court decision finding no
Search results for: pradaxa
Back to the Well with Pre-Service Removal
By Bexis on
It’s been a while since we’ve discussed pre-service removal, other than to mention a recent case. Our last major post was “What’s up with Removal Before Service,” back in May 2011.
Since then, we pointed out an important statutory development – that when Congress rewrote other parts of the removal statute (28 U.S.C.…
MDL Direct Filing & Personal Jurisdiction
By Bexis on
Bexis gave a talk the other day at the Washington Legal Foundation on personal jurisdiction after last term’s United States Supreme Court decisions in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (“BMS”), and BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) (“BNSF”). One…
Post-BMS Personal Jurisdiction Cheat Sheet
By Bexis on
In the wake of the defense wins during the last Supreme Court term in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017) (“BMS”), and BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrell, 137 S.Ct. 1549 (2017), we’re retiring the personal jurisdiction cheat sheet we had been maintaining for the last three-plus years…
Both Sides Equal Under the First Amendment
By Bexis on
There’s a problem with attorney advertising in the prescription medical product space – but it’s not the one you normally hear us defense-side litigators kvetching about. Quite apart from its litigation-generating effects, attorney advertising can have adverse public health consequences when all the anti-pharma hyperbole causes patients to cease taking targeted products in violation of…
No Ifs, Ands Or Butts – Preemption Gutts, Rebutts, and Shutts Down Utts
By Bexis on
Late last year we happily blogged about Utts v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2016 WL 7429449 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016), chiefly because it held that design defect claims against a branded prescription drug (Eliquis) were preempted under the impossibility preemption reasoning in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011),…
Dealing With Dueling Allegations That Litigation Tactics Interfere With Science
By Eric Alexander on
We have seen a few decisions on discovery issues out of the In re Pradaxa MDL. By and large, they have been pretty bad. Sanctions of almost $1 million and other “remedies yet to be addressed” bad. The latest decision on a Pradaxa discovery dispute is not so bad and, important to us in…
Litigation Holds Matter
By Bexis on
This post discusses litigation holds. Litigation holds aren’t sexy. They aren’t going to take counsel to the Supreme Court. They aren’t going to make the nightly news – at least we hope. But you know and we know that in a mass tort between 90 and 99% of the cases generated by plaintiffs’ solicitation machines…
Discovery Sanctions – A Matter of Form Over Substance
By Michelle Yeary on
We haven’t blogged much about the Pradaxa MDL pending in the Southern District of Illinois. A quick search turned up a post on a case that was remanded because a sales representative was found to be properly joined and a post on a not so great discovery ruling. But, it’s a relatively young MDL with,…
Sales Representative Fraudulently Joined? We Think So
By Steven Boranian on
We have removed more cases to federal court than we can count, and we have argued that local and/or non-diverse defendants have been fraudulently joined until we are blue in the face. We have never fully understood why many plaintiffs obsessively avoid federal court, but we do know that their most common tactic is to
…