{"id":6784,"date":"2016-12-14T17:17:13","date_gmt":"2016-12-14T22:17:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost:10028\/uncategorized\/law360-recognizes-napoli-shkolnik-litigation-top-product-liability-case-2016\/"},"modified":"2016-12-14T17:17:13","modified_gmt":"2016-12-14T22:17:13","slug":"law360-recognizes-napoli-shkolnik-litigation-top-product-liability-case-2016","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/de\/article\/law360-recognizes-napoli-shkolnik-litigation-top-product-liability-case-2016\/","title":{"rendered":"Napoli Shkolnik f\u00fcr Top-Produkthaftungsfall bekannt"},"content":{"rendered":"

Law360 Publishes Year-End Report: Recognizes Napoli Shkolnik Litigation As One of the Top Product Liability Cases of 2016<\/a>
\nLaw360 Reviews the most significant product liability ruling of the past year. <\/em><\/p>\n

Law360 has assembled a list of the top Product Liability Cases of 2016 in their Year-End Report and has named Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court<\/em> to it.<\/p>\n

In this case, the plaintiffs are represented by Napoli Shkolnik partners J\u00e4ger J. Shkolnik<\/a>, Shayna E. S\u00e4cke<\/a> und Jennifer R. Liakos<\/a>. The Napoli Shkolnik team argued that given the company\u2019s contacts in California, including its marketing and distribution and research and development facilities, the state courts have specific personal jurisdiction over non-resident\u2019s claims.<\/p>\n

The California Supreme Court agreed and gave the green-light for almost 600 non-Californians, who filed their suit in the state, to proceed with their litigation against Bristol-Myers Squibb. It was the first time the state high court weighed in on the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s 2014 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman<\/em>, which said general jurisdiction exists where a company is \u201cat home.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bristol\u00adMyers said in its petition that the California Supreme Court\u2019s split ruling allowing nearly 600 nonresidents to sue the drug company in the state\u2019s friendly venue was based on a loose blend of contacts the drug company has in the state rather than on anything connected to the litigation at hand.<\/p>\n

Those claims would be exactly the same if the pharmaceutical giant had \u201cno contact whatsoever\u201d with the state, Bristol\u00adMyers said. The company\u2019s unrelated operations in California, which aren\u2019t tied to its blood\u00adthinner drug, can\u2019t be enough to allow people who don\u2019t even live in California to sue the company there, Bristol\u00adMyers argued.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the Supreme Court takes that case, that\u2019s going to be one of the most significant decisions of the year for product liability practitioners,\u201d Peter Goss of Blackwell Burke PA said. \u201cIt\u2019s a real opportunity for the court to address litigation tourism in a meaningful way if they take it. Everyone is going to be watching that one.\u201d<\/p>\n

In its own published ruling, the California state high court said that given the company\u2019s extensive contacts with California \u2014 such as its marketing and distribution of the drug, as well as research and development facilities located there \u2014 the state courts have specific personal jurisdiction over the nonresidents\u2019 claims.<\/p>\n

Bristol-Myers Squibb is being sued by California residents and non-residents for its popular blood thinning drug Plavix.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is always rewarding to successfully represent our clients and with this ruling, we are proud to be part of a case that will have a positive impact on future pharmaceutical litigations,\u201d says Hunter.<\/p>\n

The case is Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v S.C., California Supreme Court, No. S221038.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Law360 Publishes Year-End Report: Recognizes Napoli Shkolnik Litigation As One of the Top Product Liability Cases of 2016 Law360 Reviews the most significant product liability ruling of the past year….<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":6785,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[776],"tags":[820,858,865,866,875,885],"class_list":["post-6784","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-pharmaceutical-litigation","tag-product-liability","tag-hunter-shkolnik","tag-shayna-sacks","tag-jennifer-liakos","tag-bad-drugs","tag-plavix-lawsuit"],"acf":[],"page_builder_type":"gutenberg","gutenberg_data":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6784","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6784"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6784\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6785"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}