We rarely get riled up about a decision related to removals and remands. A rejection of snap removal or a misapplication of Ruhrgas might quicken our nerdy pulses, but not engender our sense of outrage like many, many other things we have posted about through the years. However, we read a decision where a veteran
Reed Smith LLP
At Reed Smith, we believe that the practice of law has the ability to drive progress. We know your time is valuable and your matters are important. We are focused on outcomes, are highly collaborative, and have deep industry insight that, when coupled with our local market knowledge, allows us to anticipate and address your needs. You deserve purposeful, highly engaged client service that drives progress for your business.
Website:
https://www.reedsmith.com/
Reed Smith LLP Blogs
Blog Authors
Latest from Reed Smith LLP
Funding, Artificial Intelligence, and Other Bench-Bar Business
We’ve said before that plaintiff lawyers do a better job of putting together bench-bar conferences than the defense side does. It mirrors to a certain extent what goes on in the courtroom. The plaintiff side is better at showmanship. It is not just us saying that. Last week, we were at a bench-bar conference focused…
Comment k Takes a Hit in the Covidien Mesh MDL
A few weeks ago, we found ourselves underwhelmed by the court’s Rule 702 rulings in the Covidien Hernia Mesh MDL. Today, we can say much the same thing about its summary judgment decision. In In re: Covidien Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation No. II, 2026 WL 1555914 (D. Mass. June 2, 2026), the court largely…
Case Vetting Order in the Thalidomide Litigation
By Eric Hudson
Today’s post is not from the Reed Smith side of the blog.
We remember a time years ago when the phrase “Lone Pine order” was not widely understood. That has long since changed, and now it’s tough to imagine anyone who practices in mass torts not being familiar with it. Indeed, we’ve posted repeatedly about…
The Clock Is Still Ticking On The European Union’s Product Liability Directive
By Lisa Baird
For about 18 months now, we’ve been feeling a bit like Chicken Little (or Henny Penny for those in Europe).
We have been posting about the dangers hidden in the impending implementation of the European Union’s Product Liability Directive (“EU PLD”), and bending the ear of any in house lawyer in reach about taking…
Pennsylvania Superior Court Nixes Consolidated Trial
The more the merrier is not always true. Ask any defendant in a trial that consolidates the claims of multiple plaintiffs. The existence of multiple plaintiffs can conjure up an inference of guilt. If you are accused of hurting more than one person, that seems to increase the chance that the factfinder will conclude that…
Product Representatives are Not Surgical Supervisors: No Duty to Grab the Scalpel
Medical device sales representatives are many things. They know their product lines inside and out. They can tell a surgeon exactly where to find a particular screw, rod, or connector in a tray containing dozens of components. They can help ensure the requested hardware is available when needed. What they cannot do is scrub in,…
One Headcount To Learned Intermediary Rule Them All – Part 3
By Bexis
Here at the Blog, we love the learned intermediary rule. We’ve chronicled the rule’s steady expansion as it now has precedential support in all fifty states. “Every state in the country, along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, has adopted the learned intermediary doctrine in some iteration.” Dearinger v. Eli Lilly & Co.,…
Georgia Court Not In The Mood For Strict Liability Against A Product “Seller”
Is there a difference between a product manufacturer and a product seller when it comes to product liability? There is in Georgia, and the Georgia Court of Appeals’ recent opinion in Taylor v. Mood Rite, LLC, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 240 (Ga. Ct. App. May 15, 2026), underscores that point. An entity that merely packages…
Pleading Around Obvious Defenses
The now well-known requirement from the TwIqbal cases that a complaint contains factual allegations that establish that relief is plausible derives from Rule 8(a)(2) requirement that each pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” One recurring point of contention in drug and device litigation…