Implied Preemption

We were going back through some old cases the other day and came across a gem from our 黑龙江福彩网app官方下载town court right here in in San Francisco.  It caught our eye because it deals with an angle of federal preemption on which we have written before and which we think is underappreciated, so we’re going to

One slushy morning this week, we found ourselves searching for our favorite black duck boots.   We found one and put in on, then, after much rummaging in the dark recesses of our closet, found a second.   At this point, we were on the edge of missing our train, so we put on the second shoe

Plaintiffs in (mostly) prescription drug cases have tried, with decreasing success, to limit the scope of implied impossibility preemption under the Mensing/Bartlett line of supreme court precedent to generic drugs.  It’s not a particularly satisfying rationale, but the simple claim that “those were generic drug cases” did at least convince some courts that

This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.

If you know this blog, you know we leave no stone unturned when it comes to preemption.  As far as we know, Greager v. McNeil-PPC, Inc., 2019 WL 5549524 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2019) is a preemption issue of first impression.  Plaintiff alleged she

As we mentioned in our recent Preemption Teaser post, last month’s concurrence in denial of certiorari in Lipschultz v. Charter Advanced 黑龙江福彩网app官方下载 (MN), LLC, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2019 WL 5300908 (U.S. Oct. 21, 2019), provides an indication that, at least to some extent, Justice Thomas might have found a kindred spirit of sorts

One of the more peculiar things about Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668 (U.S. 2019) (“Albrecht”), is the almost off-hand way that the majority (made up mostly of justices that have opposed preemption in closer cases) wandered away from the procedural preemption issues that the Court was

In a significant preemption decision clipping the wings of California consumer protection plaintiffs, two identical decisions:  Borchenko v. L‘Oreal USA, Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2019 WL 3315288 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2019), and Borchenko v. L‘Oreal USA, Inc., 2019 WL 3315289 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2019) (differing only by docket number, as

It hasn’t happened yet, but just as the Supreme Court originally did with Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668 (U.S. 2019), the Court issued an order on June 24, asking for the Solicitor General’s views in Avco Corp. v. Sikkelee, No. 18-1140.  The Order is on SCOTUSBlog,