We’d like the answer to that question to be – most of the time.  But that’s too much to hope for.  After all, lawsuits are brought in California.  With its plaintiff-friendly laws, indeed, California is an often sought after venue by mass tort products liability plaintiffs.  But, according to a recent California appellate court

We have always wondered why judges are hesitant to sever the claims of plaintiffs who never should have joined their claims together in the first place.  You know what we mean—multiple plaintiffs, sometimes dozens of them, who join their claims together in one complaint based only on the allegation that they used the same or

A complaint is a plaintiff’s opening argument.  It has to contain enough substance to get plaintiff out of the gate.  Plaintiff doesn’t have to necessarily prove anything in his complaint, but he has to have factual support to back up what he hopes to prove.  Logically, any fact added to a complaint is intended to

In a significant preemption decision clipping the wings of California consumer protection plaintiffs, two identical decisions:  Borchenko v. L‘Oreal USA, Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2019 WL 3315288 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2019), and Borchenko v. L‘Oreal USA, Inc., 2019 WL 3315289 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2019) (differing only by docket number, as

You’ll find plenty of decisions from the amiodarone litigation discussed on the blog.  Not surprisingly, because it is a generic drug, they almost exclusively focus on Mensing preemption – or we should say on plaintiffs’ attempts to bypass Mensing.  But there are cases involving exposure to the branded product as well.  And earlier this

Earlier this month we explained that a “wrinkle removal,” was one that capitalized on a “wrinkle” in the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), which provides that a case cannot be removed on the basis of diversity if any “properly joined and served” defendant is a citizen of the forum state.  But if the forum

A complaint gets filed in California naming hundreds of plaintiffs, only 20 of whom reside in California, against out-of-state manufacturers.  Sound familiar?  Sound like something the Supreme Court rejected in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017).  It should.  So, why are we here again?  I guess you can credit