The plaintiff in Pachecho v. Johnson & Johnson, 2024 WL 3260883 (M.D. Ga. Jul. 1, 2024), both over-pleaded her causes of action and under-pleaded their factual support (at least as to manufacturing defect). Both errors led the court do a little pruning. And while the cases continues, we hope in its uncluttered state, the
A little less than three years ago we posted about a decision by a federal court in Pennsylvania that twisted Texas and Supreme Court precedent to find an independent claim for failure to test under Texas law. So, we could not resist blogging about a Texas court reaching the exact opposite conclusion.
Earlier this year
When this blogger thinks about the “Big Three” her mind goes to This is Us – Kevin, Kate and Randall. Admittedly, that’s not the only “Big Three.” Most people probably go to Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union in World War II. But that alliance certainly was shorter than the Pearsons. Now
It’s time for the Mesh Case of the Week. In Dupere v. Ethicon, Inc., 2022 WL 523604 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2022), the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming injuries from pelvic mesh that had been implanted in her to treat stress urinary incontinence. The court ended up dismissing many of the causes of action. That
Delaware is having something of a moment in the sun. Although the state’s license plates have long announced it as “The First State,” that refers to being the first to ratify the U.S. Constitution. It is the second smallest in size and sixth smallest in population of the current fifty states. The casual peruser of
Another of the recent significant decisions from the In re Zantac MDL, No. 2924, addressed preemption – mostly but not entirely involving defendants who manufactured generic versions of the drug. In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2020 WL 7864213 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2020). For those who have not
When we last left our story, plaintiffs had lost their fight to have Pennsylvania law apply to residents of Texas ( Atkinson I) and lost a chunk of their claims as barred by the Texas statute prohibiting failure to warn claims where a drug’s label has been approved by FDA and comment k (
Recently, largely related to the dubious pleasure of home ownership, we have had multiple occasions on which we were forced to shrug our shoulders and proclaim, “Nothing’s perfect.” To wit, we recently noticed a small wet spot on our bedroom ceiling. The roofing company discovered that the corresponding section of the roof was too shallow
This guest post is by Reed Smith associate Lora Spencer, who (as you might suspect) calls Texas her home. In her first rodeo on the blog, she discusses a recent MDL decision that she thinks is a few pickles short of a barrel, and hopes it’s not a harbinger of things to come. Not
In searching for cases for this blog, we sometimes feel like its Groundhog Day. Another preemption win in a PMA medical device case. Another food labeling decision from California. Another failure to plead fraud with particularity dismissal. Another “Okay, campers, rise and shine, and don’t forget your booties ’cause it’s cooooold out there today.” Well, that last one really only applies to Phil Connors, but you get the idea.
Faced with routine rulings, it can be difficult to be creative, to find the new hook or twist. So, sometimes the answer is simply to not – be creative that is. Sometimes, a decision is just what it looks like it is on its face. Another good ruling in an already good body of law. But that doesn’t mean it should be disregarded either. We just need to pluck out the good sound bites and add them to top of the pile.
For instance, if faced with a claim for negligent failure to test in Pennsylvania, you can now add Houtz v. Encore Medical Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170481 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2014) to your motion to dismiss on the ground that “Pennsylvania courts have explicitly stated that negligent failure to test is not a viable cause of action.” Id. at *7.Continue Reading Pennsylvania Sound Bites