PHILADELPHIA — A federal court in Pennsylvania allowed a consumer’s negligent misrepresentation claim to proceed against a pet food container manufacturer in her proposed class action alleging her kitten suffocated after opening the locked container and becoming trapped inside. The manufacturer’s claims that the container was “safer” for pets and would “Keep Paws Out” are specific and potentially false, and the buyer plausibly alleges the company should have known about the latch’s risks from prior complaints and a safety report.
PHOENIX — An Arizona federal court denied a medical technology company’s motion for summary judgment in a multidistrict personal injury case arising from allegations that its port catheters are defective. One of the suing patients presented evidence the company knew their port catheters commonly fracture, and that the risk of catheter fracture is “catastrophic and life-threatening.”
A class of Illinois patients maintained in a lawsuit filed Monday that healthcare company Abbott Laboratories failed to adequately safeguard patients' data.
Once a counterterrorism official at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Julia Varvaro contends accusations of prostitution by her government contractor ex-lover ended her employment.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The Supreme Court of California ruled against medical negligence plaintiffs who voluntarily dismissed their case with prejudice so they could appeal the trial court’s adverse rulings. Their case is not appealable because the trial court’s orders had not foreclosed the plaintiffs’ claims, so the action was not finally resolved. Their voluntary dismissal terminated the action and, with it, their right to appeal.
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — A federal court in New York declined to reconsider its denial of summary judgment in favor of a hospital and supervising physician sued by a surgical resident, who says the former failed to prevent his ex-girlfriend from sexually harassing him during and outside of work hours. She worked as a contract anesthesiologist at the hospital. There is a factual dispute over whether a single incident of the ex’s alleged groping constitutes a hostile work environment and whether her threats to his life and career show the groping is a pattern of conduct.
A group of Abbott Laboratories employees say they were overcharged for health insurance plans that offered no additional benefits.
MANHATTAN — The Second Circuit partially vacated a New York federal court’s exclusion of some expert testimony in two cases in which parents’ suits against big pharma corporations and retail pharmacies were dismissed over claims of failure to warn about possible ADHD and autism resulting from prenatal ingestion of acetaminophen products. The appellate court said testimony should be allowed when “a particular technique or theory has gained general acceptance in the scientific community, and an expert reliably applies that methodology to the subject of inquiry.”
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A federal court in Arkansas concluded a no-jury trial with $15,000 in damages awarded to a single working mother with two young children who was sexually harassed by a landlord in his early 70s during a tour of a rental home. “Any reasonable woman would be offended by an unwelcomed touching of her breasts and a forced grazing of her hand across the prospective landlord's crotch. The accompanying words made the sexual motivation clear.” The man’s wife was found not liable for his conduct on behalf of their property rental business.
Craig Clementi, an NFL employee injured by the gunfire, claims NYPD Detective Didarul Islam’s “inattentiveness” allowed Shane Tamura to enter the building carrying an assault rifle.
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit found a Texas federal court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of the government after an injured motorist was struck by a vehicle operated by a Customs and Border Protection agent. The court granted summary judgment on the government’s argument that the agent was engaged in union activities at the time of the incident, but no authority was cited that treats union employment differently for the purpose of “course and scope” analysis on vicarious liability claims.
