Sooner or later we knew it would happen.  The law on general jurisdiction by consent has been developing very favorably – maybe even too favorably.  Since Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U. S. 117 (2014), almost every appellate decision (including every state court of last resort and federal circuit court) has rejected general jurisdiction

This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.

Dear Readers,

The tone of today’s missive may be slightly more formal than most.  For you see, as a result of binge watching Bridgerton on Netflix, the written word is being narrated in our head by the incomparable Julie Andrews.  We so greatly esteem

The decision in In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, 969 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Booker”), is yet another reminder that multidistrict litigation as it is currently conducted is a fundamentally flawed process, dedicated more to forcing settlements than to any of the goals envisioned by Congress when it passed

This is a quick-hit post bringing you two first-of-their-kind orders on proving causation in cases alleging inadequate drug or medical device warnings.  In orders applying Georgia’s and Delaware’s versions of the learned intermediary doctrine, two different federal courts have held that a plaintiff alleging inadequate warnings cannot meet his or her burden of proving causation

This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.

It’s not a long decision – but there’s still a lot to it.  Maybe that’s because there wasn’t a lot to plaintiff’s complaint. Regardless, Sharp v. St. Jude Medical, S.C., Inc., 2019 WL 3821895 (N.D.GA Aug. 14, 2019) makes some key defense rulings.

Today’s post is another guest post from friend of the Blog Kevin Hara, of Reed Smith, who channels our resident movie critic in this wide-ranging discussion of pleading and procedural weirdness.  As always with our guest posts, the author deserves 100% of the credit, and any blame, for what follows.

**********

If ever