If Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., slip op. (June 27, 2023), were a prescription medical product case, it would probably qualify as the worst judicial decision since the Blog was created – due to its potential scope. Since it’s not, Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), retains that title. But because it does not arise from what we do, Mallory is in certain ways worse. Not only does it give free reign to all litigation tourism in Pennsylvania, but it opens the door to any other state potentially to do the same thing.Continue Reading Litigation Tourism Lives – Mallory Reversed
Since 2018, we have blogged several times about the federal government’s crackdown on abusive False Claims Act (“FCA”) litigation via motions for dismissal, and how the abusive relators have tried to resist those efforts. Last week the Supreme Court ruled that, yes, the government does have the power to shut down rogue litigation ostensibly being conducted in the name of the United States of America.
All the federal government has to do is intervene and give a coherent reason why.Continue Reading Final Report From One FCA Front – As Another Front Opens
Politics makes strange bedfellows. So does the law. Weird cases also make weird law. The Supreme Court decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, No. 21–468, — S. Ct. — , 2023 WL 3356528 (U.S. May 11, 2023) (“NPP”), evidences each of those old saws. Deciphering just what the Supreme Court held entails…
Today’s post is a little different in its format from what our readers are used to. What follows is a lightly edited (primarily adding full citations) version of a webinar presentation Bexis made recently for the “HLTh” Action Group of the Product Liability Advisory Council. The availability of this type of cutting-edge presentations is yet another reason why drug and medical device manufactures would be well served by joining PLAC. We’ve never been much for adding images to our blogposts, but here we have put together Bexis’ slides and speakers notes so that our readers can follow them more easily.
This post is a deeper dive into a preemption-related concern that we have raised before − how and why defendants can, and should, reconcile the beneficial holdings in Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001), with the rejection of the so-called “purposes and objectives” prong of implied preemption by the most conservative justices (at least in terms of federalism) on the Court.
For those of you accessing the Blog on mobile devices, this post may be hard to read. So, here are links to both the slide images and the accompanying text.Continue Reading Logical Contradiction Doctrine: Buckman for Textualists
Readers may recall our dissection of the ridiculous application of offensive, non-mutual collateral estoppel in Freeman v. Ethicon, Inc., 2022 WL 3147194 (C.D. Cal. 2022). Ultimately, the thumb that Freeman put on the scale didn’t matter, because the defendant won at trial despite that handicap.
We described the prior adverse decision that formed the ground for the collateral estoppel claim as “factual findings entered by a state-court judge after a bench trial in earlier false-advertising and unfair-competition litigation.” That description doesn’t really do the prior decision (in)justice. That decision, People v. Johnson & Johnson, 2020 WL 603964 (Cal. Super. Jan. 30, 2020), decided an action filed by the California attorney general that had essentially converted the allegations that product liability plaintiffs had been making against the defendants’ pelvic mesh into the basis for a statewide civil action under certain California consumer protection statutes. Here is the result of that decision, in a nutshell:Continue Reading Interesting Pelvic Mesh Due Process Certiorari Petition
The Supreme Court’s latest foray into the constitutional thicket of personal jurisdiction, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway, No. 21-1168 – to decide whether states can force corporations to “consent” to general personal jurisdiction via foreign corporation registration statutes − was orally argued on November 8, 2022. The transcript is available here. Since Bexis has been involved (as amicus curiae) in Mallory since the trial court’s favorable decision (which he made sure was on Westlaw and Lexis) was first appealed in Pennsylvania, we thought we’d review the highlights of the oral argument.Continue Reading Mallory Oral Argument – Litigation Tourists’ Last Stand?
Last term the newly empowered conservative majority on the Supreme Court demonstrated to all that precedent is not so precedential, even when it had stood for nearly fifty years. They very nearly did it again, but just missed, targeting precedent on religious exemptions and vaccine mandates that has been around for more than twice as long.Continue Reading Vaccine Mandates and Religion at the Supreme Court
Three times previously we have “reported from the front” on the federal government’s efforts to dismiss False Claims Act litigation – ostensibly (and often ostentatiously) filed in the government’s name – after the government has concluded that the particular case is more bother than it is worth. The most recent of those posts was late last year, and reported on Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 17 F.4th 376 (3d Cir. 2021).Continue Reading The FCA Front Moves To The Supreme Court
At the end of the term, the Supreme Court, in Ruan v. United States, 2022 WL 2295024,142 S. Ct. 2370 (2022), vacated the convictions of a couple of alleged “pill mill” doctors under the Controlled Substances Act upon finding that the government’s proof in their criminal trial did not meet the standard required…
Although it is not a drug/device case (if it were, we would have discussed it before now), the recent Supreme Court decision in Gallardo v. Marstiller, 142 S. Ct. 1751 (2022), raises some interesting issues that attorneys defending personal injury action of any sort should consider. Settlement of any personal injury case involving a…