Remember that weird case where the plaintiff was suing because the defendant removed a drug he liked from the market? Well, it was affirmed the other day, by the Eleventh Circuit. See Lacognata v. Hospira, Inc., No. 12-14078, slip op. (11th Cir. June 7, 2013) (unpublished). The affirmance isn’t much – all of one
We occasionally blog about motion in limine rulings, but not nearly as often as we read this type of decision. Let’s face it, as blogging material (as opposed to their impact on a particular case) decisions on motions in limine can be pretty boring. You can talk about this; you can’t talk about that. In
We couldn’t make this stuff up, folks.
Here’s the description of the basis of the lawsuit in Lacognata v. Hospira, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 102707 (M.D. Fla. July 2, 2012):
Plaintiff . . . brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated based on [defendant’s] failure to provide Plaintiff
In almost every jurisdiction in the U.S., an award of damages to compensate an injured plaintiff for wages the plaintiff would have earned in the future must be discounted to present value. In oversimplified form, the basic idea is clear: if you give someone in one lump sum the total amount of wages that the
The New Yorker occasionally runs squibs called “There’ll Always Be an England”– little ditties highlighting charming English eccentricity, often involving gardening for some reason.
We’re thinking of posting entries called “There’ll Always Be Posner,” comments on opinions by Judge Posner, which typically are brilliant and snappily written, typically address jurisdictional issues that nobody raised, typically
We were impressed by the number of links and other favorable attention that followed our post here about barring municipalities from hiring outside contingent fee counsel in nuisance actions brought against product manufacturers. Naturally we’re inclined to go back to the same well – even if (thankfully) municipalities have yet to get into the habit