Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Eighth Circuit Decertifies Class in St. Jude Heart Valve Case: Issues of Individual Causation Predominate
The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently decertified a class of more than 11,000 plaintiffs in the Silzone heart valve litigation on the basis that individual questions regarding causation would predominate over any common issues related to the truth or falsity of the alleged misrepresentations. In re St. Jude Medical, Inc., No. 06-3860, 2008 WL 942274 (8th Cir. April 9, 2008) ('The need for such plaintiff-by-plaintiff determinations means that common issues will not predominate the inquiry into St. Jude's liability.').
The Silzone heart valve litigation arose after the defendant, St. Jude Medical, voluntarily recalled prosthetic heart valves due to an increased risk of paravalvular leaks. Following consolidation of more than 11,000 claims from across the country in an MDL, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint asserting claims for strict liability, breach of warranty, negligence, medical monitoring and violations of Minnesota's False Advertising Act, Consumer Fraud Act, Unlawful Trade Practices Act and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In re St. Jude Medical, Inc., No. 01-1396, 2003 WL 1589527 at * 1 (D. Minn. March 27, 2003).
The recent order decertifying the class was the second issued by the Eighth Circuit regarding this litigation. In 2005, the court reversed the district court's class certification decision in part and remanded for further proceedings. Citing decisions from the Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, the Eighth Circuit reversed certification of the medical monitoring class because '[s]imply put, the medical monitoring class presents a myriad of individual issues making class certification improper.' In re St. Jude Medical Inc. Silzone Heart Valve Products Liability Litigation, 425 F.3d 1116, 1122 (8th Cir. 2005). Addressing the consumer protection class, the Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not conduct a proper conflicts-of-law analysis before deciding to apply Minnesota law to all of the plaintiffs' claims, regardless of the plaintiffs' state of residency. Id. at 1120. The Eighth Circuit, therefore, remanded the case to permit the district court to conduct the proper analysis.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.