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.
Two and half years ago we posted about a favorable California Superior Court ruling in the Risperdal and Invega Product Liability Cases litigation finding plaintiffs’ claims were preempted because there was no newly acquired information on which to base a CBE label change and because the FDA had rejected the proposed label change already. We
We’ve been posting about this case since 2016 when the district court first dismissed plaintiff’s failure to warn claim as preempted on the grounds that there was clear evidence the FDA would have rejected the warning plaintiff sought. We celebrated again in 2017 when the Tenth Circuit affirmed that decision. Since then we’ve been
It can sometimes be difficult for us here at the DDL Blog to address “mixed bag” cases. We are quite clear that we are a defense side blog. Love us or hate us – we don’t pull punches. We hoard and covet preemption and learned intermediary wins and treat each one like the gem that
Look what just fell into our lap. Our blogging about the favorable California Risperdal preemption decision last week shook loose from that same case a subsequent denial of reconsideration of a summary judgment motion in favor of the defendant based on preemption. Risperdal and Invega Prod. Liab. Cases, 2017 WL 4479317 (Cal. Super. July