One to watch is E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Travis Abbott et al., No. 23-13(U.S. cert. pending). And necessary disclosure your humble blogger co-authored an amicus brief on behalf of PLAC supporting the granting of the defendant’s petition for cert.
The case arises from the typically complex procedural history of an
Plaintiff. a neighbor of a chemical plant in Delaware, sued the plant alleging that it had released carcinogenic ethylene oxide gas into the air; plaintiff proposed a class action, asserting claims for strict liability, negligence, and private and public nuisance. The United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted plant’s motion to dismiss
The Supreme Court decided the closely watched jurisdictional case, Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 600 U.S. 122, 143 S. Ct. 2028, 216 L. Ed. 2d 815 (2023). In a series of decisions, the Court has sought to clarify the issues of personal jurisdiction (where a defendant can be sued), and the concepts of
Readers know of our interest in medical monitoring, an interest which dates back to trying a medical monitoring class action to a defense jury verdict decades ago. Your humble blogger co-authored the Medical Monitoring chapter in American Bar Association’s A Practitioner’s Guide to Class Actions, Third Edition.
Our friends at the highly regarded Drug
Better late than never. We missed last month the decision in Costa v. Johnson & Johnson, No. CV 17-452 WES, 2023 WL 2662903, at *3 (D.R.I. Mar. 28, 2023), a product liability asserting a pelvic mesh medical device was defective. Plaintiff alleged, inter alia. a failure to warn claim under Rhode Island law.
Under that
The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) extends federal diversity jurisdiction to certain “mass actions” involving “100 or more persons.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i). One might think that since CAFA was passed in 2005, the notion of mass action would have been fully analyzed. The Supreme Court has long construed jurisdictional statutes like CAFA to establish
Movie buffs may recite multiple comedic movies including a “no MSG” line in the script, but because of consumer preferences many food manufacturers do prominently label their products as “No MSG” or “No Added MSG.” Plaintiff in Henry v. Nissin Foods (U.S.A.) Co. Inc., No. 22CV363NGGRER, 2023 WL 2562214, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023)
We cannot offer any additional commentary because the Firm was part of the team representing defendant, but we wanted to commend to our readers the recent decision, In re Zofran (Ondansetron) Prod. Liab. Litig., 57 F.4th 327 (1st Cir. 2023). The case arises in the MDL related to the FDA-approved drug Zofran, and plaintiffs’ allegations
Worth our note is a recent preemption decision in In re Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Products Liability Litigation, 2022 WL 855853 (D.N.J. March 23, 2022). The case is noteworthy because it contains a cogent and well-reasoned exploration of many of the issues flowing from the Supreme Court’s decision in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.
Today’s case involves a New York federal court dismissing a proposed class action alleging that the labeling on “slightly sweet” chai tea lattes misleads consumers into thinking the drinks are low in sugar. Brown v. Kerry Inc., No. 1:20-cv-09730 (S.D.N.Y. 3/7/22).
Plaintiff asserted claims under the NY General Business law, and common law negligent misrepresentation,