54 results for 'cat:"Product Liability" AND cat:"Jurisdiction"'.
J. Stewart finds the district court improperly denied the parents' motion to remand this product liability suit, dismissing Whole Foods. The new parents sued Whole Foods and the baby food manufacturer after their healthy son's behavioral skills regressed, with tests showing that he suffered from seizure disorder, epileptiform disorder, hypotonia, and mitochondrial dysfunction. The child was also diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder/major neurocognitive disorder, with some physicians diagnosing him with heavy metal poisoning. Several years after the diagnosis, the House Oversight and Reform Committee released a report showing that the manufacturer's foods contained elevated levels of toxic heavy metals. Being that Whole Foods' business model depends on its reputation and customers’ willingness to a pay a premium for products advertised as healthy and high quality, the district court erred in concluding it was improperly joined. Allegations in the parents' state-court complaint stated plausible claims against Whole Foods. Reversed in part. Vacated in part.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Stewart , Filed On: May 28, 2024, Case #: 23-40197, Categories: Negligence, product Liability, jurisdiction
J. Devers dismisses a motorcycle dealer as a party to this suit and affirms the other parties’ claim that the dealer was fraudulently added. A couple bought a motorcycle elsewhere and noticed it was leaking oil, then took it to the dealer for repair. After a successful repair, the couple crashed when part of the braking system failed, killing the wife and causing serious injury to the husband. The other parties argue the husband and his wife’s executrix added the dealer to foil diversity jurisdiction because they could not claim negligence against the dealer. They then tried to remand the suit, but as they are found to have fraudulently added the dealer, and because diversity jurisdiction still exists, the dealer is dismissed and the motion to remand is denied.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Dever, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: 5:23cv591, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Fraud, product Liability, jurisdiction
J. Joseph denies a request by the distributor of a digital test gauge to dismiss as time-barred a product liability claim by the widow of an offshore oilfield worker. She alleges the poor design and inadequate warnings about the use of the pressure-gauge resulted in the deadly explosion at an offshore well that claimed her husband and the father of their two young children. The decedent’s employer, as the owner of the offshore platform, and the distributor of the pressure gauge are both liable even when no act on the employer’s part may have caused the accident. Prescription was interrupted by the survivors' earlier wrongful death suit against the employer in Texas.
Court: USDC Western District of Louisiana , Judge: Joseph, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 6:23cv415, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Civil Procedure, product Liability, jurisdiction
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
[Consolidated] J. Callahan dismisses three consolidated appeals challenging the district court’s decision to remand each of the underlying product liability actions back to California state court. The three consolidated product liability matters were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: Callahan, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 23-55403, Categories: product Liability, jurisdiction
J. Wier rules in part for defendants in product liability claims concerning artificial tear products because the court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant headquartered in New York, and the record does not indicate specific actions had been taken in Kentucky in relation to the product; meanwhile, the class alleges the product caused financial, not physical, injuries.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge: Wier, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 6:23cv20, NOS: Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: product Liability, jurisdiction, Class Action
J. Walter grants a request by a Texas fabricating and manufacturing company to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds claims arising from a contract product liability suit brought against a Louisiana design business by a fiberglass factory, also located in Texas. The Louisiana company alleges the fabricator is responsible for making parts of two 111-feet ventilation stacks for the fiberglass factory, one of which blew over from about 35-feet above ground level, damaging the plant below. The only performance of the contract in Louisiana was done by the design company located in Shreveport. The Texas-based fabrication plant did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting business within Louisiana or invoke the benefits and protections of Louisiana law. Therefore, the Louisiana court does not have jurisdiction over the Texas stack-builder.
Court: USDC Western District of Louisiana , Judge: Walter, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: 5:22cv5837, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: product Liability, jurisdiction, Contract
J. Strickland grants the cigarette distribution company's motion to dismiss, ruling that because it is headquartered in Virginia and the estate has put forth no evidence to show it conducted business in New Mexico, this court lacks jurisdiction over the party.
Court: USDC New Mexico, Judge: Strickland, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv1136, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: product Liability, jurisdiction, Wrongful Death
J. Chambers grants the Canadian shoe cover manufacturer's motion to dismiss the registered nurse's product liability suit claiming work-issued shoe covers she wore at the Hershel “Woody” Williams Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Huntington caused her to slip and fall "hard on her left side," injuring her left hip. shoulder and ulnar nerve. The court lacks personal jurisdiction to hear the case since the company not only "did not purposefully avail itself of West Virginia," but also "had no clue its shoe covers would end up in the Mountain State."
Court: USDC Southern District of West Virginia, Judge: Chambers, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv88, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Health Care, product Liability, jurisdiction
J. Southwick finds the district court properly dismissed the pilot's claims against the corporate defendants. The pilot suffered injuries from a crash caused by alleged component malfunctions of the single-engine plane he was flying. He filed suit in Mississippi state court against various manufacturers, and the suit was removed to federal court because two Mississippi defendants were improperly joined. Claims against the out-of-state defendants were then dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Although certain requested documents could potentially show Mississippi connections, the pilot relies "on vague assertions that additional discovery will produce needed, but unspecified facts,” which is insufficient to allow jurisdictional discovery. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Southwick , Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 22-60603, Categories: product Liability, jurisdiction, Aviation
J. Locke rules on a series of motions filed in a product liability lawsuit for injuries stemming from the use of a retractable dog leash product sold on Amazon and at Petco retail stores. A woman alleges her middle and ring fingers were amputated after the cord on a Flexi New Classic leash wrapped around her hand while she was walking her golden retriever. The court preserves her claims for negligence, design defect and failure to warn, and also finds it has personal jurisdiction over the claims against the product’s distributor. The court further grants limited discovery to allow the litigant to establish jurisdiction over the product’s manufacturer, which is based in Germany.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Locke, Filed On: February 15, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv6608, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Negligence, product Liability, jurisdiction
J. Marks denies a U.S. Army pilot and co-copilot’s motion to remand this product liability personal injury claim against several helicopter companies. The pilot and co-copilot were on active duty when a UH-72A Lakota helicopter designed, manufactured and sold by the companies experienced both engines to fail during and uncontrollably descended and crashed. The companies removed the case from an Alabama circuit court to this court. One firm, M1 Support Services, has a “casual connection” between its behavior and the claims, and acted as a federal office or agency with the U.S. Army. Therefore, M1 can exercise federal question jurisdiction under the federal officer removal statute and the court does not address the diversity jurisdiction argument.
Court: USDC Middle District of Alabama, Judge: Marks, Filed On: February 1, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv212, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: product Liability, jurisdiction
Per curiam, the Seventh Circuit remands this product liability suit stemming from a man's injuries when a Samsung SDI battery exploded in his pocket for further jurisdictional discovery. There is insufficient evidence at this point to determine whether Samsung SDI has minimum contacts in Indiana to be sued in the state. Vacated.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: January 24, 2024, Case #: 23-1024, Categories: product Liability, jurisdiction
J. Doughty denies a request by an international helicopter manufacturer to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction product liability and injury claims by a pilot allegedly forced to land his aircraft in a field during a crop dusting operation. The ruling rejects the chopper-maker's argument it has insufficient contacts with Louisiana to merit jurisdiction. Louisiana has a great interest in adjudicating the case because of the high rate of helicopter use for crop dusting and offshore work. Further, all states have a shared interest in having the jurisdiction to hold corporations accountable when their products cause harm to consumers, and the corporations' contacts with the state are sufficiently like the helicopter-maker's contacts with Louisiana.
Court: USDC Western District of Louisiana , Judge: Doughty, Filed On: January 4, 2024, Case #: 6:22cv6055, NOS: Tort Product Liability - Real Property, Categories: Corporations, product Liability, jurisdiction
J. Huff grants a personal care company's motion to dismiss negligent product liability claims brought by a consumer who allegedly suffered injuries after using a defective wax hair remover product. The consumer goods company has provided undisputed evidence that it did not design, manufacture, label or distribute the product in California or within the United States. The product was manufactured in Spain and distributed for sale in the Canadian market. Therefore, the court lacks personal jurisdiction.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Huff, Filed On: January 2, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv2051, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: product Liability, jurisdiction
J. Longoria finds that the lower court properly denied the appellant company's second amended special appearance in this lawsuit stemming from an automobile accident that allegedly arose from a fuel pump failure. The allegations are sufficient to bring the defendant company, which is a South Korean automobile parts manufacturer, "under the long-arm statute." Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Longoria, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 13-22-00176-CV, Categories: Vehicle, product Liability, jurisdiction
J. Whelan denies the consumer's motion to remand his warranty complaint alleging that his 2020 Chevrolet Bolt had defects that GM was unable to fix. GM provides evidence that the vehicle is worth $38,000. Because attorney fees in a case such as this are likely to be around $50,000, the total actual damages at issue meet the $75,000 threshold for federal jurisdiction.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Whelan, Filed On: November 29, 2023, Case #: 3:23cv1556, NOS: Motor Vehicle Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: product Liability, jurisdiction, Warranty
J. Durkin mostly grants a group of bike manufacturers’ motions to dismiss a product liability suit. A consumer brought the suit after her bike’s front wheel fell off as she was riding, causing her to fall and sustain injuries to her hands, head and wrists. The court finds it lacks jurisdiction over several of the companies involved in the bike’s manufacture, and dismisses the claims against them pending an amended complaint from the consumer which addresses jurisdiction specifically.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Durkin, Filed On: November 27, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv1328, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Consumer Law, product Liability, jurisdiction
J. Dougherty finds that the superior court properly reversed a venue transfer in this couple’s product liability case alleging negligent lawn mower design following a husband being thrown off the mower and having his legs run over by the blades. The proper venue is Philadelphia County since the record fails to indicate that the company’s products were not regularly available for sale there. Affirmed.
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Judge: Dougherty, Filed On: November 24, 2023, Case #: J-6-2023, Categories: Civil Procedure, product Liability, jurisdiction
J. Eddins dismisses three law firms from a tobacco product liability case, finding that a Hawaii circuit judge improperly refused to excuse them from accusations of conspiring with tobacco companies they represented to promote their products and conceal the harmful effects of tobacco. The state court does not have personal jurisdiction over whatever involvement the firms had in promoting tobacco, as there is no evidence the out-of-state firms ever had direct contacts within Hawaii or specifically targeted Hawaii.
Court: Hawai'i Supreme Court, Judge: Eddins, Filed On: October 18, 2023, Case #: SCPW-23-76, Categories: Judiciary, product Liability, jurisdiction