The case we discuss today, Vaughan v. Biomat USA, Inc., 2022 WL 4329094 (N.D. Ill. 2022), is neither a medical-device nor a pharmaceutical case. Nor is it a product-liability case. It is, however, a preemption case that implicates two issues relevant to our world.
The plaintiffs sold blood plasma to the defendants. When they
This post is from the non-Dechert side of the blog.
Before we get to today’s case, we fondly tip our hat to the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, held (and televised) last week. Regular readers know how much we love this annual event and also may recall that our “heart breed” is the Standard Poodle.
We have written a number of posts about pelvic mesh cases over the years. Some of us have also worked on a number of cases. At this point, many cases have gone from MDL to local district court to judgment to appeal. Over time, the tide seems to have turned. That could be because the
Under Fed. R. Evid. 9(b), “[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” In our sphere, federal courts are quite variable in how they apply this standard when deciding 12(b)(6) motions. In particular, MDLs seem to have an unfortunate habit of allowing general allegations to support
Famous (and infamous) Illinois trial lawyer Clarence Darrow once said that he never wished a man dead, but had occasionally read some obituaries with great satisfaction. (That same quote is sometimes incorrectly attributed to Mark Twain.)
We’re no Darrow. We’ve never saved a client from capital punishment, or discredited a former presidential candidate in a
A little over a year ago, the Supreme Court heard argument in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eight Judicial District Court, 141 S.Ct. 1017 (2021) regarding an issue of personal jurisdiction. At that time, we tried our hand at reading the tea leaves and made this prediction about how the Ford Motor decision might adversely
This post is from the non-Dechert side of the blog
Not long ago, one of our co-bloggers fielded some correspondence that, distilled from its abundant rhetoric, seemed to criticize a blog post for its defense-leaning bias. Given this, we hasten to reiterate, before we begin today’s post, that this is a defense blog. We are
The Xarelto personal injury claims settled in 2019 after six bellwether trials all ended with defense verdicts. What remained, until now, were several third-party payor (health insurers, “TPPs”) actions that have been dormant for almost six years. Despite the passage of time, the motions before the court in 2021 were to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6)
Before we turn to today’s case, a quick update: when last we spoke, we were about to board a plane for Peoria – our first work trip in sixteen months. We were excited about it. We regret to report that we stepped out of the plane into something resembling a weird post-apocalyptic Mad Max movie.
We are not going to beat around the bush today. When we see a “prediction” of an “expansion” of state law by a federal court, we have only one question. What about Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938)? That should have been a front and center question for the court