On February 11, we blogged about the New Jersey Appellate Court’s disqualification of a lead plaintiff firm (Beasley Allen) in the Johnson & Johnson New Jersey state court talc litigation because that firm had been canoodling with a lawyer who had formerly worked for J&J. Okay, “canoodling” is not exactly a technical, legal term, but
Our law school days were long ago. Reagan was the president. Footloose and Beverly Hills Cop topped the movie box office. Prince made great music, Lionel Ritchie made good music, and Macca and Jacko teamed up to make awful music. The Soviet Union boycotted the 1984 Olympics, which made the games … really excellent.
Even
Sometimes we feel as though we have gone back in time. The Super Bowl is in San Francisco this week, as it was 10 years ago, although this time around, the atrium lobby of our building has been converted into an ESPN studio. We are the temporary home of the Rich Eisen Show, with the
Today’s case, Hartney v. Zoetis, Inc., 2025 WL 2924661 (D.N.J. Oct. 15, 2025), is about a canine medicine allegedly gone wrong. But lest you think the DDL blog has gone to the dogs, this case addresses issues such as preemption and learned intermediary that are key in cases with thumbed, supposedly sapient, biped plaintiffs.
Mind you
Mulitdistrict litigations – both federal MDLs and their state-court equivalents – sound like noble endeavors. The concept is simple: consolidate similar lawsuits under one judge to streamline proceedings. This, in theory, avoids contradictory rulings and saves court resources. But when you pan out past the injured plaintiffs and mountains of medical records, you’ll spot one
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.
We live in a “producer-pays” world. Our discovery system gives plaintiffs a windfall by allowing them to demand production of millions of dollars’ worth of documents and data and to impose those costs almost entirely on defendants. Now think about that in MDLs. Plaintiffs
Defendant in Beavan v. Allergan U.S.A., Inc., 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2898 (N.J. App. Nov. 21, 2024) made two solid arguments for summary judgment – preemption based on the FDCA’s recall regulations and plaintiff’s lack of admissible expert testimony. The trial court rejected both. The appellate court, however, saw the merit in the
In 2018, our blogpost on In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices & Liability Litigation, 903 F.3d 278 (3d Cir. 2018), was entitled “Money For Nothing? No Standing This Time in the Third Circuit.” There, it appeared that the Third Circuit had drawn an eminently reasonable bright line disallowing no-injury
If you’ve been practicing in mass torts for any length of time, you’ve probably dealt with MSP Recovery. We’ve posted about this Medicare Secondary Payor Troll many times (most recently here). One of MSP’s typical litigation approaches is to claim it has assignments of rights from certain Medicare Advantage Plans and then assert claims
We have previously analogized that when a case is dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12, that is like the plaintiff not even getting to first base. And that when a complaint is dismissed for lack of standing, a rarer form of dismissal, the plaintiff couldn’t even get up to bat, let