The Ninth Circuit recently answered a preemption question that we had seen arise intermittently, mostly in food litigation, over the past couple of years. Because the relevant preemption clause closely resembles the language of the Medical Device Amendments (“MDA”), we thought it was worth a look.
In Webb v. Trader Joe’s Co., ___ F.3d
This post is not from the Dechert side of the Blog.
We exchanged e-mails today with one of our first mentors, many years retired. With this long-ago colleague, we tried our first prescription drug cases when we were fresh out of law school, creating some of the fondest memories of our decades-long legal career. Back
We offer a different take on preemption today. We have discussed on any number of occasions how the FDA’s regulation of drug warnings preempts (or should preempt) state-law tort claims purporting to impose different or additional warnings. But what if the alleged state-law duty is based on a public referendum or statute? Does that make
Last week we brought you both the federal and state court decisions in the Incretin Litigation granting summary judgment on the grounds of preemption. But that was not the only obstacle in plaintiffs’ way. Even if the claims were not preempted, plaintiffs’ experts fell woefully short of the mark. Today we bring you part two
The California state court consolidated Incretin litigation has closely followed its MDL counterpart. We reported on the trial court’s preemption-based dismissal here. But, after reporting on the Ninth Circuit’s undoing of the federal dismissal, we opted not to explore the California Court of Appeals decision essentially doing the same thing at the state level.
It is starting to feel like spring. For those with a poetic or philosophical bent, spring may bring thoughts of renewal and the cyclical rhythms of the planet, among other things. For those interested in more practical things, perhaps the need to do a spring cleaning or plan for some plantings outside. Clutter does have
Stop us if you have heard this before. A group of plaintiffs bring a purported class action under a range of California consumer protection laws seeking damages related to the purchase of a medical product (or collection of somewhat related medical products) that they claimed failed to comply with FDA requirements. The defendants raise preemption
In what’s a bit of a mixed bag decision, the ultimate takeaway from Bird v. Globus Medical, Inc., 2020 WL 5366300 (E.D. Calif. Sep. 8, 2020) is that the complaint was generally lacking. So, plaintiff is going to get a second chance. Meanwhile, we can take a look at just what wasn’t up to
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.
Today’s case involves several multi-plaintiff complaints filed in California involving out-of-state plaintiffs who allege they suffered an injury from using out-of-state defendants’ prescription drug product that was distributed by a company headquartered in California. Afraid you’ve fallen through a portal that transported you back
One of the cases we follow closely, with daily searches, is Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668 (U.S. 2019). It’s an implied preemption case, so while we like to think we catch all the drug/device cases anyway, Albrecht can affect preemption in a wide variety of tort situations.
We’d