For our friends practicing in the Sunshine State, we want to highlight new rules amendments which took effect on January 1, 2025. Most notably, Florida joins states around the country adopting the proportionality language from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c).Continue Reading New Proportionality Language for Florida Rules
There was a time when it seemed that half our posts were mixed bags of TwIqbal — product liability claims tested against the SCOTUS decisions in Twombly and Iqbal requiring pleadings to be substantive and plausible. Then things settled down for a bit. Did plaintiffs get smarter? Did courts resume tolerance for bare bones complaints?
Adding to the growing favorable precedent concerning state human tissue shield statutes is Heitman v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc., 2024 WL 4019318 (N.D. Fla. Jul. 22, 2024).
The plaintiff alleged that he was infected with tuberculosis from an unfortunately contaminated human tissue allograft that was implanted in his spine during surgery. The plaintiff alleged
Today’s guest post is from Reed Smith counsel, and rock music aficionado, Kevin Hara. He describes the twists and turns of pursuing an unreasonable plaintiff and counsel who unwisely turned down a Florida offer of judgment in a sizable damages/lousy liability case. While the victorious defendant didn’t get all the costs and fees it
This post is from the non-Butler Snow side of the blog.
When a news article starts with “Florida man…” you know you are in for a bit of crazy. Usually crazy and funny, but in a smack-my-head kinda way.
The lawsuit resulting in the decision in MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Ethicon Inc.
This post is not from the Reed Smith or Holland & Knight sides of the blog.
Sometimes the intersection of the law and the facts are simply undeniable. Such was true of the fourth bellwether case selected in the Bard hernia mesh MDL–Bryan v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2024 WL 385108 (S.D. Ohio Feb.
Recently, within the course of a couple of weeks, two different courts reached the same conclusion – that a plaintiff’s negligence per se claims, largely based on purported violations of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), failed to state a claim. See Disarro v. Ezricare, LLC, 2023 WL 6619445 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 11, 2023), and Alcozar v. Orthopedic & Sports Medical Center, ___ N.E.3d ___, 2023 WL 6302337 (Ind. App. Sept. 28, 2023). Another thing that these two opinions share is that neither of them relied on federal preemption in disposing of the FDCA-related negligence per se claims.Continue Reading Beating FDCA-Based Negligence Per Se Claims on Non-Preemption Grounds
Florida courts are handling a lot of lawsuits. Lots and lots of lawsuits, and for a convergence of reasons. Backlogs from pandemic-related closures and delays. The highest per capita rate of federal court personal injury cases in the country by some measures. Claims over last year’s Category 4 Hurricane Ian. Recent tort law changes
We defend drug and device manufacturers. Our cases involve drugs and devices. Not surprisingly, we tend to cite drug and device decisions. But there is no reason to ignore helpful decisions arising in other contexts. The case we report on today—Jimenez v. Holiday CVS, LLC, 2023 WL 4251176 (S.D. Fla. 2023)—is such a
Long, long ago, when we clerked for a federal district judge, we handled more than a few prisoner cases. We have to confess that many of the ones we saw were humorous to us, because they alleged a range of perceived slights and personal affronts as violations of their constitutional rights. (As readers know, we