This is from the non-Dechert and non-RS portion of the Blog.
We used to post about defense wins in litigation over both branded and generic ranitidine fairly often. The MDL in the Southern District of Florida systematically knocked down all of plaintiffs’ theories based on the lack of legal support (e.g., preemption) and lack of
Standing should not be a political issue. Ensuring that someone who initiates a lawsuit has enough of a connection to the alleged harm for which they seek redress from a court is a key part of the broader constitutional concept of justiciability. Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, they cannot decide just any
Here are a couple of recent developments that we don’t want to let get stale.
Oglesby v. Medtronic, Inc., 2024 WL 1283341 (5th Cir. March 26, 2024), is an excellent, but unfortunately unpublished, affirmance of summary judgment under Texas law in medical device case. Plaintiff brought various claims, and appealed the dismissal of two
Those of us who took Con Law as first year law students may recall Marbury v. Madison as an early test of the Supreme Court’s place in our nascent republic. Alliteration being a mnemonic device, some may recall that Madison was Secretary of State James Madison and the decision was written by Chief Justice John
Way back in September 2012, we—in its Blog-specific veiled singular usage—did our first post. We introduced ourselves with some rare first personal singular statements before proceeding to trash a Louisiana intermediate appellate court’s affirmance of a large verdict under Louisiana’s Medical Assistance Programs Integrity Law. Among our criticisms was the lack of detail on
We have posted quite a bit about the Taxotere MDL and some Fifth Circuit decisions on appeals from it. The decisions have mostly been pretty good. We have posted even more about the treatment of broad preemption issues in MDLs in recent years. From our perspective, there have been too many denials of strong defense
There’s more than one way to cook an egg. And, there’s more than one way to dismiss a case. In Bennett v. Teva, the district court decision was based on preemption. The Third Circuit took a different route basing their dismissal on TwIqbal. While we would have preferred an appellate win on preemption
Today’s case is a straight warnings case. So, there should be little surprise that if it involves a generic drug preemption shuts it down. But that does not mean that plaintiffs did not try several avenues of attack to try to find a warning claim that would stick. None did.
The case is Roncal v.
Earlier this week a district court dismissed claims brought against the manufacturer and the distributor of a generic drug, holding that all of the claims were preempted by federal law and the several also failed under Florida law. The decision, Hernandez v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., 2022 WL 204401 (M.D. Fla. 2022), is long
Federal law regulates medical devices differently from pharmaceuticals, and branded drugs differently from generic drugs. Whether a particular state-law tort claim is preempted often depends on whether the claim involves a medical device, a branded drug, or a generic drug. Often but not always. As today’s case illustrates, there is one implied-preemption principle that applies