The Seventh Circuit recently upheld the grant of summary judgment against a plaintiff asserting products liability claims against the manufacturer of an intrauterine device (IUD). See Dalton v. Teva N. Am., No. 17-1990, 2018 WL 2470634 (7th Cir. June 4, 2018). Because the plaintiff failed to produce expert testimony regarding causation, as required under the Indiana Products Liability Act (the Act), she could not prove an essential element of her claims. And the defendants—corporate affiliates who manufactured, marketed, and distributed the IUD—were entitled to summary judgment.
In 2007, Cheryl Dalton’s doctor implanted a ParaGard IUD in her uterus. After becoming dissatisfied with the IUD in 2013, she had her doctor remove it. The removal procedure, however, failed. A piece had broken off and became lodged in her uterus. Ms. Dalton’s doctor advised her that she would need a hysterectomy to remove the remaining portion of the IUD.
Ms. Dalton
Read the full article →
If you are someone who chooses an item on a restaurant menu based on calorie content, you are in luck. This month, the FDA’s “Menu Labeling Rule” requiring calorie counts next to menu items went into effect. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb issued a press release providing an overview of the labelingRead the full article →
Finding his claims were time-barred, the Fourth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of Appellant’s complaint in Ferro v. Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC, No. 17-2129, 2018 WL 2068665 (4th Cir. May 3, 2018) (“Ferro II”). The decision is a good example of why it is important for defense counselRead the full article →
As consumers continue to file class actions around the country, it is important for practitioners to analyze how federal courts interpret class certification requirements. For defense attorneys, it is especially helpful to understand the nuanced arguments that have been successful in defeating class certification and, in particular, to develop a strong factual recordRead the full article →
Last month, a district court in Massachusetts ruled that a putative class action against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Mercedes-Benz” or “Defendant”) should remain in federal court. See Richard K. Garick v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 17-cv-12042-IT (D. Mass March 30, 2018). The United States District Court for the District of MassachusettsRead the full article →
