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
The recent decision in Mize v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, ___ Cal. Rptr.3d ___, 2020 WL 3602482 (Cal. App. July 2, 2020), demonstrates why California courts – particularly state courts – have such a poor reputation when it comes to product-related litigation. In Mize, a combination of questionable reasoning, together with the state’s absurdly
People have long been fascinated by robots. Way before the term was coined in a 1920 play or Isaac Asimov popularized it, there were stories about machines that acted like living things. The droids of Star Wars universe are famed for the likeability and pluck. However, there is still the specter that some of those
The Northern District of California did not mince words in its opinion in Rodman v. Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc., 2020 WL 2525032 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2020) and so neither will we. Plaintiff had three theories of failure to warn and a design defect claim and they all failed in grand fashion due in