California’s courts have never met a case they did not like. Or, more precisely, they have never met a case over which they would not exercise jurisdiction if arguably supported by the facts, and even when not supported by the facts. We are exaggerating, of course, but not by much. You will recall that the
In our experience, plaintiffs in product liability cases always seek punitive damages. Even when their claimed injuries are quite modest or their state does not permit punitive damages, they give it a shot. We have had cases with partial summary judgment on punitive damages, with directed verdict on punitive damages, and with jury verdicts for
The late chef and travel raconteur Anthony Bourdain said that great chefs pride themselves on what they can do with offal. Anybody can make a fine steak. It takes real creativity and skill to turn glands and guts into something delectable. Think of sweetbreads, tripe, or liver. No, really. A couple of weeks ago on
A very helpful to-be-published opinion from the California Court of Appeal caught our eye this week because it comes out the correct way on an issue that has always bothered us: Does a defendant (not the plaintiff) in a product defect case have to offer evidence on medical causation to a reasonable degree of medical
California’s Proposition 65, which has spawned litigation over scientifically questionable “known to the state [of California] to cause cancer” warnings on such everyday products as cola drinks, coffee, beer, and soy sauce, see Riva v. Pepsico, Inc., 82 F. Supp.3d 1045, 1062 (N.D. Cal. 2015), took one on the chin recently in the Ninth Circuit at the hands of free speech under the First Amendment.
We can’t say it was unexpected – indeed, Prop 65 was one of the targets of the First Amendment’s prohibition on governmentally compelled speech that we identified in our 2019 post on American Beverage Ass’n v. City & County of San Francisco, 916 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (“ABA”). And lo it has come to pass.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit – First Amendment Prevails Over Prop 65
We do not care much about car racing. Sure, we have seen some parts of some races on television, had toy racecars in our remote youth, and have craned our necks to see a few fancy “street legal” versions zooming past. However, we have never attended a race in person and do not follow any
A California appellate court has ruled that California’s mandatory trial preference statute is not always mandatory, an opinion that gives courts and defendants a slight bit of breathing room in an otherwise unforgiving space. Every practitioner in the product liability space has encountered California’s trial preference statute, Civil Procedure Code Section 36. That is the
The Ninth Circuit has certified a question to the California Supreme Court on the learned intermediary doctrine that immediately caught our attention: In a failure-to-warn claim against a prescription medical product manufacturer, is the plaintiff required to show that a stronger warning would have altered the physician’s decision to prescribe the product? Or can the
Counsel defending depositions have a decision to make – whether, after opponent’s the direct examination of the witness is complete, whether to “cross-examine” a witness aligned with our own client. Usually, the answer will be “no,” because such questioning usually offers no advantages and could well undermine the witness (who may lose focus under friendly
Buckman v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001), stands for the proposition that only the federal government may enforce the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and that any state-law claim that depends on the existence of the FDCA is impliedly preempted by 21 U.S.C. § 337(a), which proclaims that all actions to enforce