Law Brief®: David Pfeffer and Richard Schoenstein Discuss the Legal Implications of Infrastructure Collapses
Last week we were lucky enough to attend the Institute of Energy Law’s 23rd Annual Energy Litigation Conference in Houston, TX, and hear its unique collection of industry professionals exchange insights and address some of...more
In September 2021, the Washington Supreme Court issued its decision in Lake Hills Investments, LLC v. Rushforth Construction Co., Inc., 198 Wash.2d 209 (2021). This case is significant because it establishes a comparative...more
Through Senate Bill 219, now codified in Chapter 59 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code, the Texas legislature has reallocated the risks for construction design defect liability in Texas by joining a majority of...more
The removal of a state court action to federal court is often conceptualized in the context of 28 U.S.C. § 1441, where, but for the plaintiff’s choice of venue, the matter could have been filed in federal court pursuant to...more
Welcome to our first Product Lines issue of 2020. Product Lines is our quarterly e-newsletter that focuses on toxic torts and product liability issues. For this edition, we are reporting on several important and timely...more
United States Supreme Court Holds Due Process Forbids Exercising Specific Jurisdiction Over Nonresident Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Nonresident Defendant Where Claims Did Not Arise From Defendant’s Contacts with Forum,...more
On June 12th, the Supreme Court issued its unsurprising decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, addressing a relatively recent twist concerning the appealability of orders denying class certification. The case resulted in...more
This year’s Supreme Court term may be more memorable for the intrigue and political drama taking place outside the Court than the import of the decisions the Court issued. On April 10, 2017, Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth...more
The reality of class action litigation is that what is supposed to be the court’s preliminary decision of whether to certify a case as a class action is often the end of the litigation. In many cases, plaintiffs will not...more
The Supreme Court recently decided a case involving an Xbox 360, although the issue before them had nothing in particular to do with the video game system itself. It got me wondering, however, how many justices would you...more
Takeaway: The United States Supreme Court has rejected a tactic used by the plaintiffs’ bar to obtain appellate court review of an order denying class certification despite a settlement of the named plaintiffs’ claims....more
A group of plaintiffs hoped to hit the reset button on the Ninth Circuit’s denial of their Rule 23(f) petition to appeal from an order striking class allegations in their case against Microsoft, the maker of the popular Xbox...more
Introduction. On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker et al., a closely watched case in the class action world, and one on which we previously reported here. Baker presented the...more
In a much-anticipated decision, the US Supreme Court held in an 8-0 vote that plaintiffs cannot confer upon themselves a right to appeal class action denials simply by dismissing actions following the denial of class...more
Washington, DC-based litigator James Freije brings us an analysis of the Supreme Court’s latest class certification decision. Resolving a current split amongst multiple federal circuits, the United States Supreme Court...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous 8-0 opinion in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to hear the...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, No. 15-457 (U.S. June 12, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a procedural issue that is of importance in any class action in terms of when and in what circumstances a...more
In a case of first impression in the Third Circuit, the Court of Appeals held that unnamed, putative class members are not required to establish standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, the Court held that...more
Included in this Issue: ..United States Supreme Court Reverses First Circuit and Holds Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act Preempts Design Defect Claims against Generic Pharmaceutical Manufacturers ..United States...more
In a closely watched decision after remand by the Supreme Court, on July 18, 2013, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld for a second time the class certification order in In re Whirlpool Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab....more
On June 24, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. Inc. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. ____ (2013), finding that design-defect claims against generic drug companies are pre-empted where...more
On June 24, 2013, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett held that state-law design-defect claims based on the inadequacy of a generic drug’s labeled warnings are pre-empted...more
In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that state law design defect claims against manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals are preempted by federal law when the claim hinges on the adequacy of the drug's...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the much-anticipated Mutual Pharms. Co. v. Bartlett, No. 12-142 (on appeal from the First Circuit Bartlett v. Mutual Pharms. Co., 678 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2012)). As we...more