MoCRA: Updates to FDA Safety Substantiation Requirements
Present Tense Interpretation Clarifies Missouri’s Venue Statute for Corporate Defendants
On August 15, 2023, the Missouri Supreme Court in State ex rel. Monsanto Co. v. Mullen, No. SC99942 (Mo. Aug. 15, 2023) (en banc), clarified competing interpretations of Mo. Rev. Stat. 508.010.5(1) (2016) with regard to the proper venue for defendant corporations sued by plaintiffs alleging first injury outside the state of Missouri. In the opinion, the Missouri Supreme Court held that venue is determined based on the location of the defendant corporation’s registered agent at the time the suit is filed, rather than the registered agent’s location on the date of a plaintiff’s first alleged injury, resolving an ambiguity contained in the statute.
MoCRA: Good Manufacturing Practices – Why Should You Care?
As discussed in the Product Perspective, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) represents a major shift in cosmetic industry regulations. This article is one of a series of posts diving into each aspect of MoCRA as we await its full implementation. We will focus on MoCRA’s mandate requiring the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) to establish Good Manufacturing Practices (“GMP”) that the cosmetic industry will have to follow going forward.
MoCRA: Is My Product a “Cosmetic” and Who Is My “Responsible Person”?
As discussed in the Product Perspective, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) represents a major shift in cosmetic industry regulations. This article is one of a series of posts diving into each aspect of MoCRA as we await its full implementation. To begin, we will discuss whether MoCRA applies to your product and, if so, which entity should serve as the responsible person for ongoing compliance.
Louisiana Appellate Court Affirms $10.35M Verdict Based on Take-Home Asbestos Exposure
On January 5, 2023, a Louisiana appellate court issued a divided opinion that addressed the nature of take-home asbestos claims. Pete v. Bolan Marine & Manufacturing Co., LLC, 2021-0626 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/5/23), 2023 La. App. LEXIS 2* (La. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2023). Despite an order limiting Plaintiff’s ability to rely on take-home exposure in proving his claims, a Louisiana appellate court affirmed a jury award of $10.35M in finding that Plaintiff’s take-home exposure was a substantial contributing factor in the development of his mesothelioma.
NYCAL Defendants Lose Requested Case Management Order Amendment Severing Punitive Damages
On November 4, 2022, the New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) coordinating Judge Adam Silvera issued a long-awaited decision denying defendants’ motion to sever punitive damages in asbestos claims filed in NYCAL. Defendants had urged the Court to amend NYCAL’s current Case Management Order (CMO) to indefinitely postpone plaintiffs’ ability to seek punitive damages against defendants, as was the case in the original NYCAL CMO and a procedure that had been in place for over 2 decades up until 2017.
Florida Supreme Court Grants Review of Common Law Marriage-Before-Injury Rule on Loss of Consortium Recovery
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that to recover for loss of consortium under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, a surviving spouse must be married to the decedent at the time of injury—not the time of death. In so holding, the Fourth District, in Ripple v. CBS Corp., 337 So. 3d 45
The Impact of Droz on Evidentiary Standards in Delaware
On March 28, 2022, the Supreme Court of Delaware settled a 15-year battle between asbestos plaintiffs and defendants by affirming the burden-shifting framework provided in a 2006 Superior Court decision. This decision affirms once and for all that where a company manufactured
Submarine Manufacturer Successfully Dives into Federal Waters with Effective Removal of Asbestos Case in the First Circuit
Recently, in Moore v. Elec. Boat Corp., No. 21-1566, 2022 WL 278535 (1st Cir. Jan. 31, 2022), a government contractor-defendant successfully appealed remand based on 28 U.S.C. § 1442, the so-called Federal Officer Removal Statute.
Moore serves as a reminder – especially to asbestos defendants – that contractors acting under the direction of a branch of the military (or any U.S. agency) should determine the extent of the government’s involvement. A fact-intensive inquiry, such evidence may be sufficient
Mallory enforced by Philadelphia Court – There Is No General Jurisdiction Based on Registration to Do Business
We previously blogged on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Mallory v. Norfolk S. R.R. Co., Civ. A. No. 3 EAP 2021, Slip. Op. J-49-2021 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2021), which put an end to general jurisdiction based solely on registration to do business in the Commonwealth. Since the issuance of this landscape-shifting decision, courts in the Commonwealth have seen a flurry of ”Mallory motions” coming in all shapes and sizes. So far, plaintiff’s response has been uniform – Mallory’s holding is limited and does not apply to defendants whose dealings are entirely “interstate” and who have no “footprint” in the Commonwealth. This attempt to minimize the impact of Mallory was recently rejected by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in Emery v. U.S. Steel Corp. giving a glimpse of hope to foreign defendants haled to court in Pennsylvania.