Two logos side by side with Critical Legal Content in a red square on the left and HB Litigation in blue on the right

The Humble Beginnings and Wild Evolution of the TCPA with Joe Apatov

January 29th, 2022|Categories: Class Actions, Complex Business Litigation, ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, News|Tags: , , |

The Humble Beginnings and Wild Evolution of the TCPA with Joe Apatov Only $32 million!  I mean, why bother even getting out of bed? Joining me to discuss the evolution of the TCPA is Joseph A. Apatov (japatov@mcglinchey.com), a member of the McGlinchey Stafford law firm’s Consumer Financial Services Litigation practice group. Based in their Fort Lauderdale office, Joe litigates on behalf of financial services clients in both state and federal courts, with an emphasis on defending banks, mortgage lenders and servicers, private-label card issuers, and automobile finance companies.  Apologies for my trip down memory lane. Bear with me as I regale you with stories from the newsroom at Mealey’s Litigation Reports and the team’s anxious reliance on the "latest" technology: the facsimile machine. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how much Joe enlightened you, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.   Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast “The Telephone Consumer Protection Act had humble beginnings,” our [...]

Read More

Public Justice Shares Inside Look at Roundup Trial and Appeal in First Episode of “Justice Pod”

November 8th, 2021|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Environmental Torts, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts, News|Tags: , , , |

Public Justice Discusses Hardeman v. Monsanto in First Episode of Justice Pod That is according to a post written by Leslie Brueckner, Senior Attorney with Public Justice following the May 2021 Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling against Monsanto, and for Edwin Hardeman, a California resident who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after decades of exposure to Roundup. The jury awarded Hardeman $5,267.634.10 in compensatory damages, and $75 million in punitive damages. The district court reduced the punitive damages award to $20 million.  In this inaugural episode of Justice Pod: Conversations with Public Justice Change Makers, Leslie, is joined by David J. Wool, an attorney with the Wagstaff Law Firm.  Wool and Jennifer A. Moore of the Moore Law Group, were on the trial team led by highly-regarded mass tort plaintiff attorney Aimee Wagstaff.  Public Justice’s Brueckner served as co-lead appellate counsel along with Wool before the Ninth Circuit. Listen to what they felt inspired the jury to return such a substantial award, how Monsanto attempted to defend its actions, what the evidence revealed, and what it was like in the courtroom with the Hardeman family when the foreman read the verdict. I hope you find the episode inspiring and informative! Susan Gombert Host of Justice Pod: Conversations with Public Justice Change Makers Listen Now! Monsanto Co. has “stopped at nothing to deny the [...]

Read More

A Special Episode: A lovable litigator with Danny Karon

October 8th, 2021|Categories: Class Actions, ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Law Firm Operations, News|Tags: , , |

A Special Episode: A lovable litigator with Danny Karon For  30 years attorney Daniel R. Karon has successfully represented plaintiffs and defendants in class-action and individual lawsuits. He's also chair of one of the leading class action conferences for lawyers, judges and law professors: the American Bar Association National Institute on Class Actions. He's passionate about educating up-and-coming lawyers. He teaches and writes extensively, and has been featured on podcasts and television news shows.   While practicing law (handling some intensely serious matters), Danny became acutely aware of "a societal bias against access to justice where people who need justice the most often get it the least." One response to that was to launch Your Lovable Lawyer, a multi-media website whose goal is to "make  justice more accessible to people who don’t know, can’t find, or can’t pay for lawyers." He endeavors to provide actionable insights regarding common legal problems. He refers to his "lovable" concept as "legal wellness," and encourages regular folks to take a proactive approach to legal matters and potential conflicts.  This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want [...]

Read More

Will We See More Antitrust Litigation During Biden Administration?

March 16th, 2021|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Corporate Compliance, News|Tags: , , , , |

One Current and One Former FTC Official Weigh in on Outlook for Antitrust Litigation (Excerpt from MoginRubin Blog) FTC Commissioner Noah Phillips and George Washington Law School Competition Law Director William E. Kovacic, who once chaired the agency, appeared on a webinar today (March 16, 2021) hosted by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). Aurelien Portuese, ITIF’s Director of Antitrust and Innovation Policy, asked the speakers what we might expect from the Biden administration in terms of antitrust law, reform, and enforcement. “I think that the aggressiveness that's going on in court right now will increase," Phillips said. "I think you'll see more litigation. What effects that will have I'm not sure. That can result in more antitrust, if you will, but it can also result in losses and legal rulings that don't favor the agencies. But I do think you'll see more litigation." He went on to predict "an increasing attempt to slow M&A generally." “On litigation," former FTC Chair Kovacic said, "the new leadership in many ways is committed to doing much more and, in an exaggerated way, they have denigrated the significance of what's already on the way. They're going to discover in a hurry how hard it is to bring the matters that are in flight already to a successful landing." Read more [...]

Read More

Climate Change Litigation Expands with Addition of Hoboken, NJ’s Suit Against Big Oil

September 14th, 2020|Categories: Environmental Torts, HB Risk Notes, Mass Torts, News|Tags: , , , |

Excerpt of Sept. 2, 2020 post at HobokenNJ.gov. Decades-long campaign of misinformation has directly contributed to effects of climate change in Hoboken, City seeks relief for costs associated with climate adaptation efforts. Hoboken Mayor Ravi S. Bhalla today announced that the City of Hoboken has filed a lawsuit in Hudson County against Exxon Mobil, other Big Oil companies, and the American Petroleum Institute for a decades-long campaign of misinformation related to climate change and its devastating impact on Hoboken. According to the lawsuit, Big Oil companies have caused substantial harm to the public in Hoboken and New Jersey by actively lying about the detrimental effects of their products when in fact their own research indicated otherwise, all in order to generate multibillion dollar profits by producing, marketing, and selling vast quantities of fossil fuels. Big Oil engaged in a continuous practice of misleading the public about climate change and their role in it, directly resulting in adverse impacts in Hoboken including rising sea levels that jeopardize the long-term health of the City. Photo by Patrick Hendry on Unsplash “As a coastal community, Hoboken has directly felt the impacts of climate change, including rising sea levels and more frequent storms,” said Mayor Bhalla. “At the same time we’ve invested hundreds of millions of dollars adapting to the realities of climate [...]

Read More

Progress of Roundup Settlement in Question, Verus Reports

September 2nd, 2020|Categories: Class Actions, Complex Business Litigation, Environmental Torts, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: , , , , , |

Manager of Research Services Verus LLC klavin@verusllc.com 609-466-0427 Progress of Roundup Settlement in Question Judge Would Likely Not Have Agreed to a Stay Had He Known About the Contingency On August 27, plaintiffs’ counsel in the multi-district litigation involving Monsanto and its widely used weed killer Roundup, advised the court that parent company Bayer AG appeared to be going back on the settlement agreement announced in June. At that time, the company had agreed to settle about 75% of the 125,000 claims filed by plaintiffs alleging that their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was linked to Roundup use; the settlement was for an estimated $10 billion. At the hearing, Judge Vince Chhabria advised that he had received confidential letters from a number of plaintiffs’ counsel with cases pending in the MDL who were concerned that Bayer AG was going back on the settlement, noting that the company had terminated settlement term sheets and refused to execute master service agreements that would finalize their settlements; Bayer conceded that there were currently no final agreements. Bayer did advise Judge Chhabria that about 667 of the cases currently pending in the MDL had been resolved, a figure that the judge noted was only a fraction of the 4,000 currently filed.  The judge also pointed to Bayer’s June 24 announcement of the settlement, [...]

Read More

NJ Judge Overstepped in Striking Talc Plaintiff Experts, Verus Reports

August 21st, 2020|Categories: Class Actions, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: , , |

Manager of Research Services Verus LLC klavin@verusllc.com 609-466-0427 Judge Abused Discretion in Striking Expert Evidence, NJ Appellate Court Finds Reverses 2016 Summary Judgment in Ovarian Cancer Cases On August 5, a three judge panel from the New Jersey state appeals court reversed a 2016 summary judgment granted in favor of defendants, talc manufacturer Johnson & Johnson and talc miner Imerys Talc America in cases brought by two women who allege J&J’s talc products caused their ovarian cancer. In its opinion, the panel ruled that Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Nelson C. Johnson abused his discretion by serving as the fact finder in deciding the credibility of the plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions instead of merely assessing whether the doctors’ opinions were based on sound scientific methodology. The trial judge acknowledged that the experts, Dr. Graham Colditz and Dr. Daniel Cramer, were qualified but opined that their scientific studies and evidence were narrow and shallow, showing a preference for cohort studies and their larger sample sizes over the case studies relied on by the experts.  In overturning the ruling by the trial court and discussing the studies cited by Colditz and Cramer, the appeals court stated that those studies satisfied the criteria outlined in the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence and also noted that size and [...]

Read More

Contract Drafting Fundamentals

July 2nd, 2020|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Complex Business Litigation, Corporate Compliance, HB Risk Notes, Law Firm Operations, Technology Law|Tags: , , |

Register Now Contract Drafting Fundamentals: What I Wish They Taught Me in Law School Speaker: Will Marshall | Partner UBM Law LLP Date: Thursday | July 23, 2020 Time: 2pm ET 1pm CT 12pm MT 11am PT Duration: 75 minutes Price: Early Bird Registration: $75 After July 14: $95 Special: Complimentary with discount code! What you get: CLE credit Course materials Webinar recording Answers to your questions! Contact CLE Manager Get practical insights on contract drafting. For new and seasoned attorneys alike, this 75-minute program will cover core, practical aspects of contract drafting, including a broad range of fundamental concepts, skills, and tips.  The program is designed to make you a more deliberate drafter and improve your ability to assess the purpose and effectiveness of each provision in your contract.  We will discuss not only what is on the page, but external dynamics that affect drafting and negotiation. Finally, we will reserve time to answer your questions. I am offering this program for free to my network to help you develop these foundational skills. If you haven't received it, please contact me directly for the complimentary pass code.  -- Will Marshall,  Partner, UBM Law Group LLP Key topics:  The goals and challenges of good drafting. The anatomy and building blocks of a contract. Categories [...]

Read More

PTSD in Multi-Plaintiff and Mass Tort Cases | Webinar OnDemand

July 19th, 2019|Categories: Class Actions, Complex Business Litigation, Employment, HB Risk Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: , , , , |

[one-fourth-first]   Price: $47 When: On-demand Where: Your computer or mobile device CLE: 1 hour Speakers Mark I. Levy MD, DLFAPA Medical Director Forensic Psychiatric Associates Medical Corporation Associate Clinical Professor, Psychiatry University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine 415.388.8040 mlevy@fpamed.com  Sarah A. Hall, PhD. Psychologist for Forensic & Neuropsychological Assessments Forensic Psychiatric Associates Medical Corporation shall@fpamed.com  [/one-fourth-first][three-fourths] What tort attorneys need to know about PTSD claims. Mass tort claims arise most frequently in man-made and natural disaster catastrophe litigation as well as personal injury, employment, product liability and toxic tort litigation. Frequently, these lawsuits include either primary or secondary allegations of emotional distress. PTSD is one of the most common emotional distress claims alleged within mass tort litigation, as well as allegations of depression and emotional stress (anxiety).  Join an experienced psychiatrist and psychologist who will cover the following topics relevant to the forensic psychiatric assessment of emotional damages within mass tort and complex litigation:  + Introduction: Defining PTSD. What it is and what it is not. + The methodological approach to assessing allegations of emotional distress in mass tort & complex litigation. + The importance and the methodology of psychological testing as part of the assessment of emotional distress claims in mass tort litigation. + Claimant population screening. Using psychological test instruments to differentiate claimants who [...]

Read More

The Wrong-Headedness of Hindsight Standards — Michelle Yeary | Drug & Device Law Blog

May 27th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: , , , |

Dechert LLP attorney Michelle Yeary cautions against applying perfect hindsight to drug liability. "We all know hindsight is 20/20.  And, it’s easy.  There are dozens of television and radio programs that thrive on Monday morning quarterbacking.  There’s no risk in saying the coach should have called for a pass when you already know the run didn’t work.  It’s also dangerous because it’s easy.  People are often too quick to point out that you should have taken path B after everyone learns path A is full of potholes.  Pointing it out is one thing, holding you liable for it is another." Yeary takes a look at what happened in Holley v. Gilead Science, Inc., 2019 WL 2077845 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2019). The case involves two of the main active ingredients in AIDS drugs: TDF and TAF. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant should be responsible for allegedly knowingly using TDF over TAF (allegedly a safer alternative). TDF was FDA approved first and TAF second.  Unfortunately, Yeary wrote, hindsight "can be used to demand perfection," allowing  plaintiffs to "proceed on what is essentially a stop-selling theory," that first-generation drugs should not be submitted to the FDA because, in hindsight, "later approved treatments were safer." That's what happened in Holley, she said. Read the complete post by Michelle Yeary on the Drug and [...]

Read More

A Generic Drug Failure to Warn Claim? –Michelle Hart Yeary

April 14th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: , , , |

[one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half] "Rather than focusing on what plaintiff’s off-label marketing claim really was – a claim that defendant’s label should have contained different information or warnings about off-label uses – an impliedly preempted claim, the court got distracted trying to fit the case in under Bausch and started talking about parallel violation claims. "The court found that because plaintiff was alleging a violation of federal regulations, his claims “run parallel to [defendant’s] state law duties,” and thus were not preempted. The problem with this is that Mensing is not an express preemption case.  It was an implied preemption case, and the district court had no business applying 'parallel claim' analysis to implied preemption, where a 'parallel claim' exception does not exist.  It makes no difference whether plaintiff’s off-label promotion claim is 'parallel' to federal regulations, defendant could not have offered any different warning so any claim that the warning or information it provided was inadequate is preempted under Mensing.  The court was trying to fit a square peg into a round whole – and the only way that works is to cut off the corners." Read the complete post by Dechert's Michelle Hart Yeary here! [/one-half]

Read More

Settlement Psychology: Who is in Control? Homer Simpson or Mr. Spock? | Complimentary Webinar

April 1st, 2019|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Law Firm Operations|Tags: , , , , , , |

Settlement Psychology Who's in charge? Homer Simpson or Mr. Spock? Cognitive obstacles to finding common ground. [two-fifths-first] Complimentary On-Demand Webinar From HB! 1 CLE credit CLE questions? CLE@LitigationConferences.com Questions for speakers? Questions@LitigationConferences.com SPEAKERS Jeff Trueman Mediator / Negotiator John Philip Miller Baltimore City Circuit Judge (ret.) This course is also available via the West LegalEdcenter. [/two-fifths-first] [three-fifths] Improve your negotiation strategy and outcomes. Mediator, arbitrator and settlement conference neutral Jeff Trueman says the lawyer’s mind can sometimes play tricks on them when it comes time to settle a claim. “The central question on the minds of counsel, their clients, and insurance professionals in civil litigation is, of course, ‘What’s the case worth?’ For mature torts there is enough historical settlement and verdict data exist for counsel to argue why a particular case should or should not fit within a certain settlement range. In the midst of these discussions, the human brain plays tricks on us. For example, litigators sometimes assume that their trial experience can determine how jurors will negotiate with one another and resolve factual discrepancies after closing arguments. This assumption is a ‘heuristic’ – a cognitive shortcut called attributional error or illusion of control.” Backed by his decades of psychological and economic sciences research, Trueman says there is a lot of room for [...]

Read More
Go to Top