As we discussed in our “breaking news” post, the Supreme Court’s decision in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2019 WL 2166393 (U.S. May 20, 2019) (“Albrecht”), delivered a defense win on the main issue before the Court – that preemption is a question “a
Search federal question
Guest Post: When Is A Deadline Really The Deadline? – Class Certification, Motions to Reconsider, and Appeals Under Federal Rule 23(f)
By Bexis on
Today’s guest post by Reed Smith associate Tim Carwinski addresses the broader possible ramifications of a recent Supreme Court decision, Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 139 S. Ct. 710 (2019). This is one of those many cases that we saw something about, but it didn’t seem that pertinent to what we do, so we let…
Ninth Circuit Affirms Federal Preemption Over Dietary Supplement Claims
By Steven Boranian on
We have taken a daily multivitamin ever since our doctor told us that we were chronically deficient in a particular vitamin, the one you can get from being out in the sun. Given our chosen line of work, we should not be surprised that we don’t get enough sunlight. We should also not be surprised…
The Demise of Drug Design Litigation: Death by Federal Preemption
By Bexis on
That is the intriguing title of the latest law review article written by the “Rabbi of Torts,” Prof. Aaron Twerski (we’re not making this up, Prof. Twerski’s Wikipedia page is the fifth result when we just Googled that phrase). Prof. Twerski, one of the ALI’s reporters for the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, has…
On Prevention of Federal Fraud on the FDA Claims That Avoid Buckman
By Bexis on
Private plaintiffs love to scream “fraud on the FDA”! Agency fraud is their magic potion for dissolving any FDA action that they don’t like. Just assert that the FDA was bamboozled and invite some jury somewhere to ignore what the FDA actually did. Unfortunately for the other side, Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee,…
Simple Question; Not So Simple Answer
By Bexis on
We were reading the appallingly bad personal jurisdiction (and other things, but those aren’t what we’re interested in today) decision in Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., ___ A.3d ___, 2018 WL 3030754 (Pa. Super. June 19, 2018). While many of the jurisdictional issues in Hammons are factually limited to the particular defendant and the particular…
Federal Court Reconfirms No Strict Liability for Prescription Drugs in Pennsylvania
By Michelle Yeary on
This should not be controversial. It has been settled since Hahn v. Richter, 673 A.2d 888 (Pa. 1996) that in Pennsylvania prescription drugs are exempt from strict liability. And since Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) re-worked Pennsylvania’s strict liability law, we’ve only reported one federal court decision…
More Adventures In Personal Jurisdiction − Examining The BMS “Federal Court” Caveat
By Bexis on
We’ll be hitting all the Presidents’ Day sales today, but something tells me we’ll be disappointed because we won’t be able to buy, beg, borrow, or steal a new one. So we keep trying.
With plaintiffs desperate to find some way to continue pursuing aggravated, aggregated product liability litigation in their favorite venues after Daimler …
Utah Federal Court Dismisses Birth Defect Failure to Warn Claim
By Stephen McConnell on
Today Time Magazine announces its Person of the Year. The publisher called us a week or so ago to say we were PROBABLY going to be named Man (Person) (Blog) of the Year, but we would have to agree to an interview and a major photo shoot. We said “probably” is no good and took…
Items of Interest on the Federal Civil Rules Committee Agenda
By Bexis on
The federal Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure released its latest Civil Rules Agenda Book on November 7, 2017. A copy of it is available here. A couple of items on the agenda should be of interest to blog readers.
The first topic has to do with proposed changes Fed. R. Civ. P.…