CAFA

Subscribe to CAFA
Photo of Bexis

Sometimes bad enough should just be left alone.  That’s what a bunch of plaintiffs (and/or their lawyers) found out the other day from the Seventh Circuit in Abbott Laboratories, v. Alexander, Nos. 12-8020, et al., slip op. (7th Cir. Oct. 16, 2012).  Even when actions are filed in notoriously pro-plaintiff jurisdictions plaintiffs can’t get away with anything and everything – although they sure tried in Alexander.
Here’s what happened.  In 2010 and 2011 said bunch of plaintiffs – “several hundred” according to the court (id. at 2) – filed ten identical actions in three Illinois counties against the same defendant concerning the same drug.  Apparently plaintiffs are allowed to get away with such mass-misjoinders in Illinois.  See Anderson v. Bayer, 610 F.3d 390, 393 (7th Cir. 2010).  Can you guess the three Illinois counties where these filings occurred?  We sure could:
Madison.
St. Clair.
Cook.
That kind of huge misjoinder, barred in most places, was bad enough, but then the plaintiffs decided to prejudice the defendant even more by seeking consolidation of their prior complaints (with at minimum dozens of plaintiffs each) into one big unhappy monster:

Plaintiffs asked for consolidation of their lawsuits in St. Clair County because the cases “present common questions of fact . . . as well as common questions of law. . . .”  In the memorandum in support of their motion, plaintiffs said they were requesting consolidation of the cases “through trial” and “not solely for pretrial proceedings.”

Alexander, slip op. at 3 (document citations omitted).
Oops.  Pigs get fat, but hogs get slaughtered (or is it vice versa).  That was a bit much even for pro-plaintiff venues.  Plaintiffs – very unintentionally, we’re sure − triggered the “mass action” provision of CAFA by requesting such a consolidation.Continue Reading Consolidation Request Backfires On Plaintiffs

Those pesky state AGs, usually aided by the plaintiffs’ bar, are an increasingly important player in coordinated drug and device litigation. And there always seems to be something vaguely unfair about a state filing a parens patriae action in its backyard state court, and then waving the (state) flag about how the AG is simply…

Photo of Bexis

Every once in a while, we run into interesting stuff on the web.
Today, we thought we’d share a few things with you.
First, Professor William Rubinstein of Harvard Law School hosted the Class Action Prof Blog until he seemingly gave up the ghost last year. But, in his last post, he linked to this…

Photo of Bexis

This post will completely miss the point.
(Yeah, yeah: So how does that distinguish this post from all the rest of ’em?)
In Pew v. Cardarelli, No. 06-5703-mv, slip op. (2d Cir. May 13, 2008), plaintiffs alleged that officers of an issuer failed to disclose, while marketing debt securities, that the issuer was insolvent.…

Photo of Bexis

This guest post was written by Sean Costello. Mr. Costello is an associate resident in the Atlanta office of Jones Day. This post is entirely his work. It, of course, represents only his views, and not the views of his clients or firm:
The Class Action Fairness Act has succeeded in shifting more…

Photo of Bexis

This guest post was written by Sean P. Costello. Mr. Costello is an associate resident in the Atlanta office of Jones Day. This post is entirely his work. It, of course, represents only his views, and not the views of his clients or firm:
Last September, the Federal Judicial Center issued its “Second…

Drug & Device Resources

Bexis’ Book

FDA-regulated products now account for an estimated one-fifth of overall economic activity in the U.S. They have also been the focus of a litigation explosion. This timely guide covers all aspects of litigation involving drugs, medical devices, vaccines and other FDA-regulated prescription products.
Learn More About This Book