Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

OMJP appealed from the district court's denial of its motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and (3). In Levaquin I, the court upheld a jury award in compensatory damages against OMJP for Achilles tendon injuries plaintiff suffered while taking OMJP's prescription antibiotic Levaquin. In this appeal, OMJP contended that the district court abused its discretion in denying OMJP relief under Rule (60)(b)(2) based on the delinquent and belated disclosure of an expert's calculation regarding the relative risk of Achilles tendon rupture to certain patients. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief based on OMJP's claim of "newly discovered evidence" where the evidence was merely cumulative or impeaching and OMJP had not demonstrated that it was probable it would produce a different result. In regards to OMJP's misconduct claim under Rule 60(b)(3), the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the lack of the expert's calculation did not prevent OMJP from mounting a vigorous defense and that any misconduct did not warrant a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Schedin v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals" on Justia Law

This case arose when groups of plaintiffs filed product liability actions against four manufacturers of transvaginal mesh devices, including Boston Scientific. Three groups filed similar motions proposing that the state court assign each group to a single Judge for purposes of discovery and trial. Two district judges granted plaintiffs' motions and remanded to state court on the ground that no case included more than 100 plaintiffs and plaintiffs had not proposed to the state court that the actions be tried jointly. The court granted Boston Scientific leave to appeal and vacated the order remanding to state court where the three groups of plaintiffs have already proposed to try their cases jointly within the meaning of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(11)(B)(i), because plaintiffs' counsel urged the state court to assign the claims of more than 100 plaintiffs to a single judge. View "Atwell, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp." on Justia Law

Bruce Martin filed suit against CTB for negligent misrepresentation and breach of express warranty after the power sweeps it purchased from CTB did not work. The court concluded that it's decision in Dannix Painting, LLC v. Sherwin-Williams foreclosed Bruce Martin's argument that the district court erred in concluding that Missouri's economic loss doctrine precluded its negligent misrepresentation claim. Further, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to CTB on Bruce Martin's breach of express warranty claim. Under Indiana law, the court agreed with the district court that Bruce Martin had alleged a defect in the design of the sweeps that was not covered by CTB's warranty against "defects in material and workmanship." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bruce Martin Construction, Inc. v. CTB, Inc." on Justia Law

PETCO sought a declaration that ICNA had to defend and indemnify PETCO in an underlying litigation with Medtronic. Medtronic sued PETCO after an aquarium heater it had purchased from PETCO malfunctioned and started a fire at a Medtronic plant. The district court granted ICNA's motion for summary judgment and PETCO appealed. At issue was whether the aquarium heater satisfied a condition precedent to coverage under the policy. The court affirmed the district court's judgment on the ground that PETCO failed to identify any mandatory or voluntary safety standard with which the heater complied. View "PETCO Animal Supplies Stores, et al. v. Ins. Co. of North America" on Justia Law

In this product liability suit against the manufacturers of the prescription drug Reglan and its generic equivalent (metoclopramide), plaintiff appealed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment to Brand Defendants and its dismissal of her claims with prejudice against Generic Defendants. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Brand Defendants where plaintiff's claims were not viable under Arkansas law because she stipulated that she never used Reglan manufactured or distributed by any of the Brand Defendants. In regards to the claims against the Generic Defendants, the court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's non-warning breach of implied warranty claims and remanded for further consideration as to whether they adequately stated viable claims under Arkansas law and if so, whether the Generic Defendants could nonetheless establish preemption. It was not immediately clear whether Arkansas offered generic drug manufacturers an opportunity, consistent with federal obligations to somehow alter an otherwise unreasonably dangerous drug. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's failure to warn and failure to update claims; reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's non-warning design defect and breach of implied warrant claims; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged various causes of action against the maker of the generic drug (Pliva), brand defendants, and others after she was injured by the prescription medication metoclopramide. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of brand defendants and dismissal of her claims against Pliva. The court denied plaintiff's motion to supplement the record, finding no compelling reason to allow plaintiff to do so; the district court did not err in determining plaintiff's claims against brand defendants failed as a matter of law because she stipulated that she had not ingested a product manufactured by brand defendants; reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's non-warning design defect and breach of implied warranty claims and remanded for further consideration; and because there was no causal link between Pliva's failure to incorporate the 2004 labeling change and plaintiff's injury, the district court's dismissal of that claim was not error. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bell v. Pfizer, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff's hands were injured when a battery-operated toy purchased at a Wal-mart store in Aberdeen, South Dakota exploded after he picked it up to see why it was malfunctioning. With the three-year statute of limitations about to expire and the toy manufacturer bankrupt, plaintiff filed this tort action in state court against Wal-Mart. The district court granted Wal-mart's motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, concluding that plaintiff failed to comply with the applicable South Dakota service of process statute. Because plaintiff initiated the action in state court and attempted to serve Wal-mart prior to removal, South Dakota law governed whether service was sufficient. The record clearly supported the district court's finding that the assistant manager was not the person in charge of the Aberdeen store when service was attempted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Sommervold v. Wal-Mart, Inc." on Justia Law

Bayside installed hurricane-resistant windows manufactured by Viracon and supplied by EFCO. Shortly after installation, cracking and delamination occurred in some of the windows. Bayside filed suit against Viracon and EFCO nine years after it noticed the defect. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Viracon and EFCO, concluding that Minnesota's two-year statute of limitations applied to Bayside's breach of warranty claims and therefore, these claims were time-barred. View "Bayside Holdings, Ltd., et al v. Viracon, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Whirlpool after a fire destroyed their home, alleging that the fire was caused by a defective refrigerator Whirlpool designed, manufactured, and sold. Whirlpool appealed the jury's finding in favor of plaintiffs. The court concluded that the fire investigator did not employ National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 921 in his investigation and therefore, his testimony could not be excluded for failure to reliably apply its contents; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the challenged testimony of the investigator where the jury weighed the conflicting evidence and credited the investigator's testimony in spite of Whirlpool's challenges; the district court did not err when it denied Whirlpool's motion for judgment as a matter of law where the circumstantial evidence was strong enough to allow the jury to infer that the refrigerator contained a defect at the time it left Whirlpool's control and that caused the fire; and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Whirlpool's motion for a mistrial for violation of an in limine order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Russell, et al v. Whirlpool Corp." on Justia Law

Robinson marketed and sold camouflage products that, according to Robinson, would eliminate human scent so that wild game, with their acute sense of smell, would not be able to detect a hunter's presence. Consumers who had purchased these products brought class action lawsuits against Robinson, claiming that Robinson's products did not actually eliminate human odor (collectively, "the underlying lawsuits"). Robinson sought defense and indemnification from it's insurer, Westfield, but Westfield declined coverage. Instead, Westfield brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy did not cover the underlying lawsuits. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Westfield where Westfield was under no obligation to defend or indemnify Robinson in the underlying lawsuits and where Robinson waived its argument premised on the reasonable-expectations doctrine. View "Westfield Ins. Co. v. Robinson Outdoors, Inc." on Justia Law