In DeLong v. Rhode Island Sports Center, Inc., et al., a former college hockey player successfully appealed a Rhode Island Superior Court decision granting an ice rink’s motion for summary judgment in a case alleging that he was poisoned by an ice resurfacer after finding that circumstantial evidence present in the record was sufficient to… Continue Reading
Category Archives: Litigation Trends
Subscribe to Litigation Trends RSS FeedDelaware Supreme Court Finds Duty To Warn For Product Manufacturers And Employer Defendants In Take Home Exposure Case
Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Delaware Courts, Employment Litigation, Professional LiabilityRamsey v. Georgia Southern University Advanced Development Center, et al., No. 305, 2017, C.A. No. N14C-01-287 ASB (Del. June 27, 2018). On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware issued a fifty-seven-page opinion in the above-mentioned case, creating new precedent for Delaware employer liability in secondary or “take-home” asbestos cases…. Continue Reading
The Potentially Far-Reaching Implications of Murphy v. NCAA Outside of Sports Betting
Posted in Litigation TrendsThe Supreme Court’s May 14, 2018, decision in Murphy v. NCAA was focused on sports betting, however, the case at its core served as a stress test on the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty. No. 16-476, 2018 WL 2186168 (U.S. May 14, 2018). Constitutional law prohibits the federal government from “commandeering,” or compelling the states… Continue Reading
Massachusetts Stakes Out a Middle Ground and Allows Brand Drug Liability for Generic Drug Labeling Claims Upon a Showing of Recklessness and Serious Harm
Posted in False-Labeling Claims, Litigation Trends, Massachusetts Courts, Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices, Products LiabilityThe overwhelming majority of courts (including all seven federal circuits that considered the issue) have rejected the so-called “innovator liability” doctrine.[1] In 2017, however, the California Supreme Court in T.H. v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.[2] unanimously recognized the doctrine holding that brand-name prescription drug manufacturers owe a duty to warn to consumers who use generic drugs.[3]… Continue Reading
A Rhode Island Court Considers an Employer’s Duty of Care to a Non-Employee for Asbestos Exposure
Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Employment Litigation, Litigation Trends, Rhode Island Courts, UncategorizedOn April 16, 2018, a Rhode Island court addressed for the first time whether an entity owes a duty of care to protect non-employees from exposure to the asbestos-tainted work clothes of the entity’s employee. In a decision denying the defendant Crane Co.’s motion for summary judgment in the matter of Carolyn Nichols, as Executrix… Continue Reading
Trouble Brews in NYCAL after Summary Judgment Rejection
Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Litigation Trends, New York Courts, Products LiabilityA March 22, 2018, denial of a defendant’s summary judgment motion in the New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) signals a drastic lowering of the product identification standards in that venue (and a possible strategic adjustment necessary in future defendants litigating there). In Trumbull v. Adience, Inc., a former brewer sued Stavo Industries (“Stavo”)… Continue Reading
Developments in Sexual Orientation Discrimination Claims under Title VII
Posted in Employment Litigation, Litigation Trends, Rhode Island CourtsTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. Federal circuits are currently split on whether discrimination based on sexual orientation falls within the scope of discrimination based on sex (and therefore within the scope of Title VII’s prohibition). On… Continue Reading
Rhode Island Supreme Court Redefines Requirements for Modifying an Arbitration Award that Exceeds Insurance Policy Limits
Posted in Insurance Litigation, Litigation Trends, Rhode Island CourtsIn a recent decision, the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that when an arbitration award exceeds the insurance policy limits, the Superior Court cannot consider the policy limits, or the insurance policy itself, in a motion to modify the award, unless the insurance company asserted a policy limit defense at the arbitration and provided a… Continue Reading
Bristol-Meyers Squibb Standard Helps MG+M Attorneys Secure a Dismissal
Posted in Asbestos Litigation, California Courts, Litigation TrendsRecently, a team of attorneys from MG+M successfully obtained a dismissal of all claims against their client, based on the lack of personal jurisdiction. The case was Howell v. Asbestos Corporation, pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court before the coordinating asbestos judge, the Honorable Steven J. Kleifield. In his decision dismissing the claims, Judge… Continue Reading
No More Double-Dipping in Michigan
Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Litigation TrendsThe federal Bankruptcy Code allows companies in bankruptcy proceedings to establish asbestos bankruptcy trusts, in which assets are set aside for the benefit of future claimants whose specific identity is unknown at the time of the bankruptcy. So-called “double dipping” can occur when a plaintiff seeks recovery from an asbestos bankruptcy trust without disclosing that… Continue Reading
Tinder No Match for CA’s Second District Court of Appeal in Allegedly Ageist Pricing Case
Posted in California Courts, Class Action Litigation, Litigation TrendsA California appellate court recently ruled that Tinder’s age-based pricing strategy violated the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which broadly outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, sexual orientation, age, and other classes. California’s Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles reversed the trial court’s dismissal of a class action brought by a putative group… Continue Reading
Massachusetts Focuses on the Elements of Spoliation
Posted in Food & Beverage Litigation, Litigation Trends, Massachusetts CourtsIn Santiago[1] v. Rich Products Corp., et al.[2], the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that a finding of spoliation requires both: (1) the negligent and intentional loss or destruction of evidence; and (2) the awareness of the spoliator at the time the evidence is lost or destroyed of the potential for the evidence to help resolve… Continue Reading
Death, Taxes, and Sexual Harassment: How the #MeToo Movement Affected Trump’s Tax Bill
Posted in Corporate Litigation, Employment Litigation, Litigation Trends, UncategorizedOn December 22, 2017 President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (officially Public Law no. 115-97, named “An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018”). Recognized generally for changes to the individual income tax brackets, the… Continue Reading
Florida Court of Appeal’s Recent Reversal of $21M Asbestos Verdict Highlights the Inherently Speculative Nature of Asbestos Claims
Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Florida Courts, Premises LiabilityOn August 30, 2016, a Miami-Dade jury awarded Richard Batchelor and his wife more than $21 million after finding that his mesothelioma arose, in part, from asbestos exposure during overhaul work at a Florida Power & Light Co. (FP+L) power plant. On December 27, 2017, the Third District Court of Appeal erased the verdict against… Continue Reading
Age-Targeted Facebook Ads Challenged by Proposed CA Class Action
Posted in California Courts, Class Action Litigation, Employment Litigation, Litigation TrendsA group of companies that advertised job opportunities through Facebook’s ad-serving platform discriminated against older members of the applicant pool, claims a proposed class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This filing suggests potential liability for any employer that posts jobs via ads that target recipients based on demographic… Continue Reading
Eastern District of Louisiana Rejects Attempt to Defeat Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction After Removal
Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Louisiana Courts, Products Liability, UncategorizedA federal district court in the Eastern District of Louisiana recently held that it continued to have federal jurisdiction under the federal officer removal statute, even after the plaintiffs amended their petition to delete claims that gave rise to federal subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the original removal satisfied the proper requirements to… Continue Reading
Florida Plaintiff Receives $6.9 Million Judgment After Florida Appellate Courts Require Jury To Be Instructed With A More Consumer Friendly Test
Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Florida CourtsIn 2015, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision in Aubin v. Union Carbide, which mandated that juries be instructed on the “consumer expectations test.” On November 28, 2017, seven years after initially filing her lawsuit, a plaintiff in Miami-Dade County won a $6.9 million asbestos verdict in a retrial based on the Aubin decision,… Continue Reading
Connecticut Requires Expert Testimony for Proving Exposure Levels
Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Connecticut Courts, Litigation Trends, Products Liability, UncategorizedFor the first time since 1989[1], Connecticut’s Supreme Court addressed the plaintiff’s burden of proof in the asbestos context, in Wayne Bagley v. Adel Wiggins Group et al, SC 19835 (11/7/17). In a win for defendants facing such claims, the court found that plaintiffs bringing claims pursuant to the Connecticut Product Liability Act (under both… Continue Reading
Johnson & Johnson Found Not Responsible in Los Angeles Superior Court
Posted in Asbestos Litigation, California CourtsIn the first case of its kind to go to trial, a jury recently returned a defense verdict against a plaintiff who claimed that exposure to Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder caused her to develop mesothelioma. The plaintiff, Tina Herford, filed suit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and alleged that her exposure to… Continue Reading
U.S. District Court for the District of CT Determines that Connecticut’s Medical Marijuana Law Protects Qualifying Patients from Workplace Discrimination
Posted in Connecticut Courts, Employment Litigation, Litigation Trends, Rhode Island CourtsThis article is Part Five of our Medical Marijuana and the Workplace: Recent Decisions from New England Courts Provide Significant Protections to Medical Marijuana Patient Employees Five-Part Series. See Parts One, Two, Three and Four for reference. A federal court in Connecticut has continued the recent trend of New England courts recognizing a cause of action under state law for patient-employees… Continue Reading
Florida Supreme Court’s Recent Decision Places Objections to Amendment 7 Discovery on Life Support
Posted in Florida Courts, Medical MalpracticeSince 2004, the Florida Supreme Court has examined a series of objections raised by defendants to avoid producing records of “adverse medical incidents.” In each case, the Court has found that Amendment 7 to the Florida Constitution, which grants broad rights of record access to medical patients, abrogates any Florida statute that would otherwise prohibit… Continue Reading
California Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant Employer on PAGA Cause of Action
Posted in California Courts, Employment Litigation, Litigation TrendsIn a recent decision, Lopez v. Friant., 2017 WL 2451126, the California First District Court of Appeal provided guidance as to the meaning of the Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA. The Lopez ruling reversed an Alameda County trial court’s ruling, which had granted summary judgment in favor of defendant-employer Friant & Associates on the… Continue Reading
RI Superior Court Finds Implied Private Cause of Action Within the State’s Medical Marijuana Law for Adverse Action Taken Against Qualifying Patients & Recognizes that the RICRA Provides Similar Protections for Qualifying Patients Faced with Workplace Discrimination
Posted in Employment Litigation, Litigation Trends, Massachusetts Courts, Rhode Island CourtsThis article is Part Three of our Medical Marijuana and the Workplace: Recent Decisions from New England Courts Provide Significant Protections to Medical Marijuana Patient Employees Five-Part Series. A few months before the Barbuto opinion, see Parts 1 and 2, a Rhode Island court issued a summary judgment ruling making it easier for employees to claim… Continue Reading
Supreme Judicial Court’s Decision in Barbuto vs. Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC and Another is Contrary to Federal Law, Marks Significant Departure from Rulings in Other States
Posted in California Courts, Employment Litigation, Litigation Trends, Massachusetts CourtsThis article is Part Two of our Medical Marijuana and the Workplace: Recent Decisions from New England Courts Provide Significant Protections to Medical Marijuana Patient Employees Five-Part Series. Read Part One here. The Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling in Barbuto marks a significant departure from case law arising under the medical marijuana laws of other states, and in particular,… Continue Reading
Editors
Brian Gross
Brian D. Gross is a partner at MG+M who has extensive experience in a broad spectrum of litigation. He is also a member of several corporate defendants’ national trial teams. MoreJennifer A. Whelan
Jennifer A. Whelan is a partner in MG+M’s Boston office, her practice focuses on defense of asbestos, mass tort, products liability, and general liability matters. Jennifer serves as national coordinating counsel in asbestos litigation matters. In this role, she works closely with a variety of corporate and expert witnesses to prepare cohesive litigation defense strategies. More
Contributors
Cory Lapin
As an associate in MG+M's Miami office, Cory D. Lapin practices high-exposure complex litigation. He has significant experience in areas such as medical malpractice, products liability, mass torts, and catastrophic injury litigation. More
Joseph M. Aguirre
As an associate in the firm’s Boston office, Joseph M. Aguirre works on a variety of complex litigation matters. Prior to joining MG+M, Joseph worked as a litigation associate at a regional law firm in Alabama where his practice focused on employment litigation, personal injury and wrongful death tort claims, and professional liability. MoreHelen M. Buckley
As an associate in the firm’s New Orleans office, Helen M. Buckley focuses her litigation practice on a number of complex litigation practice areas, including asbestos litigation and toxic tort relating to premises, products, and general liability. MoreStephanie M. Spritz
As an associate in the firm’s Miami office, Stephanie M. Spritz’s practice includes defending clients in complex litigation matters. MoreIan A. Epperson-Temple
Ian A. Epperson-Temple is an associate with MG+M based in the firm’s Boston, Massachusetts office. He is a member of the Complex Litigation Practice Group and focuses his practice on defending a variety of complex civil litigation matters including premises liability, products liability, toxic tort liability, and general defense liability. More
Alexander L. Zodikoff
Alexander L. Zodikoff is an associate in MG+M's Boston, Massachusetts office, where he is a member of the Complex Litigation Practice Group. More
Freddy Fonseca
Freddy Fonseca is an associate with MG+M and an FAA licensed airframe and power plant technician. Clients have come to rely on Freddy for his eight-year career as an aircraft maintenance technician, knowledge of federal aviation regulations and airport operations, and enthusiasm for aviation, to defend toxic tort and products liability aviation cases. More
Emily Westfall
Emily Westfall is an associate in the firm’s San Francisco office. Her practice includes defending clients in toxic tort, products liability, employment discrimination, wage and hour, class action, and construction litigation. Her experience defending cases from beginning to resolution includes crafting innovative pre-trial and trial strategies, initiating aggressive discovery, deposing key witnesses, and successfully advocating for clients in court. More
Eddie Dennis
Eddie Dennis is an associate in MG+M's Irvine, California office. His practice focuses primarily on toxic tort liability, premises liability, general liability and construction law. Eddie represents entities such as product manufacturers, premises owners, and contractors through all phases of pre-trial litigation. More
Daniel Shevtsov
Daniel Shevtsov is an associate in the firm’s Walnut Creek office. His practice focuses on construction litigation, real estate, personal injury, products liability, and general civil litigation. More
Sean McGah
An Associate in the Irvine, California office, Sean dedicates his practice to multiple-party complex litigation, mainly cases involving environmental tort and asbestos litigation. Sean has extensive experience defending premise owners, contractors, product manufacturers, and product suppliers. More
Juniper Bacon
Juniper Bacon is an associate with MG+M, where her practice currently focuses on products liability and complex litigation, with an emphasis on products liability, premises liability and toxic tort. More
Stephanie M. Batchelder
Stephanie M. Batchelder is a partner in the firm’s Products Liability and Complex Tort Litigation Group. Her practice has a primary focus on insurance defense, products liability and asbestos-related toxic tort cases in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. More
Abby Adams
Abby Adams is an associate in the firm's San Francisco office, where her practice focuses on civil litigation including products liability, toxic tort, professional malpractice and employment law litigation. In addition, Abby has experience negotiating business and event contracts on behalf of small to medium-sized businesses. More
Javier F. Flores
Javier F. Flores is a partner with MG+M, whose trial and litigation practice focuses on food-borne illness, product liability, professional liability and premises liability matters. Javier has litigated cases throughout the country and has extensive experience defending and counseling clients in civil actions. More
Kaylin S. Grey
Kaylin S. Grey is an associate in MG+M’s Miami office. She is a seasoned litigator whose practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, products liability and toxic tort defense. More
Matthew Giardina
Matt is an associate in the Providence, Rhode Island office, and a member of the firm’s Complex Litigation Practice Group. He focuses his practice in the areas of products liability defense, mass torts, and other complex tort litigation as well as employment law and corresponding litigation.
More
Meghan B. Senter
Meghan B. Senter is an Associate with the firm’s Complex Litigation Group, based in the firm’s New Orleans offices. Meghan focuses her practice in the areas of products liability, premises liability, insurance defense, and toxic tort.
More
Marisa Pearson
Marisa K. Pearson is an associate with MG+M, whose practice focuses on complex civil litigation, including toxic tort, mass tort, and products liability defense. More
Rebecca Kibbe
Rebecca Kibbe is a partner residing in the Miami office of MG+M. She focuses her practice on product liability and toxic tort defense, specializing in asbestos defense. More
Jonathan Tabasky
Jonathan Tabasky represents architects, attorneys, engineers, real estate brokers and appraisers, and independent insurance adjusters, among others, in negligence/professional malpractice cases. He also represents a broad range of companies in product liability and toxic tort cases including manufacturers of prescription drugs, protective clothing, fittings, heating devices, wire and cable, trucks, aircraft and turbines. More
Nicole Harrison
Nicole Villalvazo Harrison is an associate in MG+M’s Los Angeles, California, office, where she is a member of the Products Liability and Complex Tort Litigation group.
More
Katherine Vogelhuber
Kate Vogelhuber is an associate in the firm’s products liability and complex tort practice, where she concentrates on products liability defense and litigation management for a number of the firm’s national clients. Kate is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of Illinois. More
Jason Cincilla
Jason Cincilla is a partner at MG+M and the lead attorney in the firm’s Delaware office. He conducts and supervises a broad litigation practice, and he has extensive experience in all stages of litigation in many areas. More
Carrie Lin
Carrie Lin is a partner in MG+M's San Francisco office. Her civil litigation practice focuses on tobacco and asbestos matters as well as the prosecution of employment class action matters. More
Eric Skelly
Eric Skelly is a partner with MG+M. He is a civil litigator who focuses his practice on all aspects of civil litigation including food liability matters, business and commercial disputes, products liability, and toxic torts. More
David Davidson
David Davidson is a partner with MG+M and a member of the firm’s Products Liability and Complex Tort Litigation Group.
More
Michael Christopher
As an associate in MG+M’s Irvine office, Michael J. Christopher focuses his practice on insurance and asbestos litigation.
More
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Connect with MG+M
Follow Us on Twitter