Search

The article discusses the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland which decision for extensive discovery and grave sanctions against the plaintiffs' attorneys. Topics include claimed which established a link between the experiments and the plaintiffs' conditions; mentions the importance of verifying the claims and potential clients and witnesses; and involves experiments of the U.S. government on citizens for sovereign nation.

The article examines the jurisdiction of federal district courts in the U.S. over multiple lawsuits arising from a single mass disaster under the Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act (MMTJA). The MMTJA specifically bestows jurisdiction to courts over any civil action involving minimal diversity between adverse parties and arising out of certain types of mass disaster accidents occuring after January 31, 2003. The limitation of jurisdiction provision and the removal jurisdiction under MMTA are also discussed.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court, District of Wyoming case Tolman v. Stryker Corp. It states that the case has been filed after the orthopedic trauma device, known as an intramedullary nail, developed by medical equipments maker Stryker Corp. failed to completely heal the plaintiff's hip fracture. It adds that the complaint has been denied by the court due to the plaintiff's failure to present sufficient evidence of the product's defect.

The article discusses the court case United States v. Valor Medical, Inc. wherein the biomedical-device manufacturer Valor Medical Inc. and its officials are facing trial on alleged violations of the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. It mentions that Valor withheld two animal studies from investigational device exemption (IDE) application of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The article reports that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York enjoined the Lago Agrio plaintiffs from seeking enforcement of an 18-billion-U.S. dollar judgment in any court outside of the Republic of Ecuador. The district court denied the Lago Agrio plaintiffs a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal. The Ecuadorian plaintiffs had sought to initiate simultaneous proceedings in multiple jurisdictions around the world.

The article presents the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York summary judgment ruling in favor of the pharmaceutical firms in the Pamidronate multidistrict litigation (MDL). The court ruled based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pliva v. Mensin that U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations preempt failure-to-warn claims against generic drug manufacturers. The Pamidronate MDL was created under the claims that Pamidronate's generic form causes osteonecrosis of the jaw.