We wrote a few days ago about a favorable ruling on a state human tissue shield statute in Heitman v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc. (N.D. Fla.). That case gave us another good procedural ruling to share, rejecting a trick we see all too often: an attempt to join a non-diverse defendant post-removal.Continue Reading N.D. Fla. Rejects Post-Removal Attempt to Amend to Defeat Diversity
Even though lawyers who bill for their time defending product liability cases might favor those cases sticking around and plaintiffs getting many chances before inevitable dismissals with prejudice, we have been clear that we think plaintiffs should not get to re-plead around preemption once courts have defined the preempted path. There seems to be an
The orders denying untimely, post-remand attempts to amend complaints in the Taxotere litigation are piling up, and it doesn’t get old. We recently reported on one such denial in the Northern District of California. In recent weeks, district courts in New York, North Carolina, and Tennessee (among others) have joined in. Today we report on three of those decisions.Continue Reading More Taxotere Remand Courts Deny Untimely Amendments
McMillian v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44783 (March 13, 2024), is another example where a court shot down a belated, post-remand attempt by a Taxotere plaintiff to change the allegations of her complaint. You might think that we will mimic some of our earlier posts about remand courts fixing a mess