A leading medical device manufacturer in connection with advice, briefing, and litigation analysis regarding class certification requirements in product liability actions in state and federal court.
Representative Henry Waxman as amicus curiae in a case presenting the question whether the Hatch-Waxman Act preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims against the manufacturer of a generic drug whose warnings were, as the Hatch-Watxman Act and the FDA’s implementing regulations expressly require, “the same as” those the FDA approved for the product’s brand-name equivalent. PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011). See 2011 WL 794113 (brief).
Former FDA Commissioner as amicus curiae in a case presenting the question whether a private party can bring a Lanham Act claim challenging a product label regulated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Pom Wonder LLC, v. The Coca-Cola Company, 134 S. Ct. 2228 (2014). See 2014 WL 891762 (brief).
Former FDA Commissioner as amicus curiae in a case presenting preemption questions under the Arkansas Medicaid Fraud False Claims Act (MFFCA) and Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) in promotional materials relating to antipsychotic medication. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. State of Arkansas, 432 S.W.3d 563 (Ark. 2014). See 2013 WL 9995059 (brief) (Supreme Court of Arkansas).
Eighteen Members of Congress as amici curiae in Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S.Ct. 1187 (Mar. 4, 2009), which presented the question whether FDA approval of prescription drug labeling preempts state law product liability claims. See 2008 WL 3851609 (brief) (U.S. Supreme Court).
General Motors in the trial court and on appeal of products liability action concerning the failure of a former subsidiary’s engine on a C-130 military transport plane, which killed six servicemen. Buckhout v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 176 F.3d 481 (9th Cir. 1999).
Amici in a case involving federal preemption under the Medical Device Amendments. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996). See 1996 WL 109608 (brief) (U.S. Supreme Court).
Product liability claims made by foreign agricultural workers for injuries and damages allegedly caused by exposure to the pesticide dibromo chloropropane (“DBCP”). Chaverri v. Dole Food Co., Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ---, 2012 WL 4097216 (E.D.La., Sept. 17, 2012).
A group of appeals involving the lawfulness of an amendment to the diet drug settlement. In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation, 385 F.3d 386 (3d Cir. 2004) (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit).
A group of appeals involving the lawfulness of a district court order suspending claims-processing deadlines in a class action settlement. In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation, 90 Fed. Appx. 643 (3d Cir. 2005) (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit).
A petition for mandamus involving subject-matter jurisdiction and fraudulent joinder issues regarding some 14,000 actions in the diet drug multi-district litigation. In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2006) (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit).
A group of appeals involving the question of the interpretation of the federal filing fee statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1914, in multi-district litigation. In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation, 418 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2005) (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit).
A petition for mandamus seeking termination of the diet drug multi-district litigation involving more than 30,000 claimants on the ground that coordinated pretrial proceedings had ended. In re Wilson, 451 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2006).
A proceeding involving defective prosthetic medical devices. In re Sulzer Hip Prosthesis & Knee Prosthesis Liab. Litig., 2001 WL 1842158 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 20, 2001) (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio).
Rep. Henry A. Waxman in a case involving the preemption of state-law failure-to-warn claims under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011).
Kenneth W. Starr and Erwin Chemerinsky as amici in a case presenting the question whether the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 preempts vaccine design defect claims. Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 131 S. Ct. 1068 (2011).
A group of leading medical researchers from Mayo Clinic, Wake Forest, and Scripps in a case presenting the question whether adverse event reports can be “material” information under the securities laws even if they do not reveal a statistically significant increased risk of harm from product use. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusanoz, No. 09-1156 (U.S. Supreme Court).
Northrop Grumman in a case involving the definition of a “vessel” under maritime jurisdiction. Transocean Enterprise, Inc. v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 473 (2010).
A health care provider in a multi-million-dollar medical malpractice case. Pritchard v. Coram Healthcare Corp., No. B215010 (Cal. App. 2d Dist.).
A state constitutional challenge to legislative caps on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions. Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hosp., 237 Ill.2d 217, 930 N.E.2d 895 (2010).