Thursday, August 8, 2013

MDL Panel Grants Transfer in Effexor Litigation and Two Others

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted three Motions to Centralize and denied eight Motions to Centralize in its July 2013 Hearing Session.

Motion granted:

MDL No. 2458 - IN RE: Effexor (Venlafaxine Hydrochloride) Products Liability Litigation (before Judge Rufe in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania)

MDL No. 2455 - IN RE: Stericycle, Inc., Steri-Safe Contract Litigation (before Judge Shadur in the Northern District of Illinois)

MDL No. 2454 - IN RE: Franck's Lab, Inc., Products Liability Litigation (before Judge Engelhardt in the Eastern District of Louisiana)

Motion denied:

MDL No. 2469 - IN RE: Capatriti Brand Olive Oil Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

MDL No. 2467 - IN RE: Bank of America, N.A., Mortgage Corporation Force-Placed Hazard Insurance Litigation

MDL No. 2466 - IN RE: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Mortgage Corporation Force-Placed Hazard Insurance Litigation

MDL No. 2465 - IN RE: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Mortgage Corporation Force-Placed Hazard Insurance Litigation

MDL No. 2464 - IN RE: HSBC Mortgage Corporation Force-Placed Hazard Insurance Litigation

MDL No. 2463 - IN RE: Fresh Dairy Products Antitrust Litigation (No. II)

MDL No. 2453 - IN RE: Adderall XR (Amphetamine/Dextroamphetamine) Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation

MDL No. 2456 - IN RE: Kashi Company Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

 

PM

August 8, 2013 in Mass Torts, MDLs, Recent Decisions | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Aberson et al. on Summary Judgment in State Court

Jaclyn Aberson, Patrick Garry, Candice Spurlin, and John Garry, all of University of South Dakota Law School, have posted their paper "The Use and Success of Summary Judgment" on SSRN.

Abstract:

As judicial caseloads increase, putting a strain on court budgets and resources and delaying the resolution of cases, solutions are pursued to alleviate this strain. Summary judgment motions present one path that courts may take to more quickly dispose of cases that do not meet certain threshold legal requirements. Nevertheless, there is little research data on the use of summary judgment motions, as well as the success of those motions, particularly at the state court level. To address this important litigation issue, the Hagemann Center for Legal and Public Policy Research at the University of South Dakota conducted a research study of summary judgment motion practice in Minnehaha County – the most populated county in South Dakota. 

The study evaluated over 477 litigation cases filed in Minnehaha County circuit courts. Although the study covered a three-year time period, it is only an introductory study of a very complicated area of civil litigation practice. As such, this study is intended to serve as a springboard for future studies. Nonetheless, the Hagemann Center study does yield some enlightening insights into how civil litigants use summary judgment motions and how courts deal with such motions.

PM

August 7, 2013 | Permalink | Comments (0)