Gilead Tenofovir Cases, Gilead Sciences v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco

California|2024

(Ca., filed March 13, 2024): Urging the court to review

[…]

(Ca., filed March 13, 2024): Urging the court to review the lower court’s decision to adopt an innovative theory of liability. The California Court of Appeal created a new duty to innovate. It significantly expanded product liability finding that even if a product is not defective or unreasonably dangerous, a company can be held liable if it was researching and developing another product that it “knew” was “safer” and did not release it fast enough.


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

In Re FirstEnergy Corporation Securities Litigation

|6th Circuit|2024

(6th COA, filed February 16, 2024): Arguing that the district

[…]

(6th COA, filed February 16, 2024): Arguing that the district court’s erroneous expansion of affiliated ute undermines the reliance requirements.  The affiliated ute presumption applies only to claims based on omissions, not misstatements of half-truths.  The district court abdicated its responsibility under Comcast to conduct a rigorous analysis of plaintiffs’ damages model.  Left uncorrected, the district court’s decision will expand securities fraud class actions and impose significant costs on american businesses.


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Speerly v. General Motors

|6th Circuit|2024

(6th COA, filed February 21, 2024): Arguing that the district

[…]

(6th COA, filed February 21, 2024): Arguing that the district court erred in certifying these substantially
uninjured classes. This Court should confirm that Rule 23(b)(3) classes must exclude the uninjured. Even if the uninjured could be damages class members, the absence of class wide proof of injury defeats
predominance. Circumventing Article III and Rule 23 restrictions on class actions harms American businesses and the economy as a whole.


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Ford v. Parks

Texas|2024

(Tx., filed February 8, 2024): Arguing that Ford Motor Company’s

[…]

(Tx., filed February 8, 2024): Arguing that Ford Motor Company’s “release” of a vehicle constitutes a “sale” under the plain text of the statute of repose. A “sale” is the transfer of property from one party to another for a price. The statute of repose does not require a defendant to prove the exact date of sale necessarily occurred outside the 15-year period. Adopting respondents’ misreading of the statute of repose would defeat the entire purpose of providing predictability.


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

In re Nissan North America Inc.

|6th Circuit|2024

(6th COA, filed February 2, 2024): Arguing that district courts

[…]

(6th COA, filed February 2, 2024): Arguing that district courts must conduct a Daubert analysis of expert testimony that provides the evidentiary basis to find commonality.  Proper gatekeeping of expert testimony is critical to any rigorous analysis of commonality and predominance. This court should make clear that district courts cannot postpone rigorous analysis of commonality and predominance.


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Ford Motor Co. v. Hill

Georgia|2024

(Ga. Ct. App., filed January 19, 2024): Arguing that the

[…]

(Ga. Ct. App., filed January 19, 2024): Arguing that the “death penalty” sanctions in this case defies any test of proportionality. The sanctions did not address the availability of lesser sanctions. It imposed issue preclusion with respect to matters wholly unrelated to the conduct that the order purported to
address and Ford was subjected to “trial by sanctions,” all but mandating a verdict for punitive damages.


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

In re National Opiate Litigation

Ohio|2024

(Oh., filed January 8, 2024): Arguing that the Ohio Product

[…]

(Oh., filed January 8, 2024): Arguing that the Ohio Product Liability Act, as amended in 2005 and
2007, supersedes this Court’s divided opinion in City of Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. and
clarifies that Ohio recognizes public nuisance’s traditional limits and does not allow “any public nuisance claim or cause of action at common law in which it is alleged that the . . . sale of a product unreasonably interferes with a right common to the general public.” Public nuisance has traditionally been limited to conduct that interferes with the use of real property and the Ohio General Assembly has confirmed that public nuisance does not extend to the sale of lawful products. The federal district court’s decision contravenes settled nuisance law and will wreak havoc on Ohio businesses if it is not repudiated.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Coinbase Inc. v. Suski

|SCOTUS|2023

(U.S., filed December 22, 2023) Arguing that the effect of

[…]

(U.S., filed December 22, 2023) Arguing that the effect of a subsequent contract on a prior arbitration agreement that remains in effect is a question of the arbitration agreement’s scope, not contract formation. The Court of Appeals should have enforced the delegation clause even if the issue here involves contract formation.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Alonzo v. John

Texas|2023

(Tex., filed December 8, 2023): Arguing that a Court majority

[…]

(Tex., filed December 8, 2023): Arguing that a Court majority opinion should clearly prohibit unsubstantiated anchoring, which produces nuclear verdicts unmoored from evidence and harmful to Texas. The Court should encourage the use of objective tools to determine whether a non-economic damages amount is fair and reasonable compensation.  

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

McKinney v. Goins

North Carolina|2023

(N.C., filed in November 2023): Arguing that the state’s reviver

[…]

(N.C., filed in November 2023): Arguing that the state’s reviver legislation for certain types of claims is unconstitutional.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

In re Purdue Pharma LLP

|SCOTUS|2023

(U.S., filed October 27, 2023): Arguing that the bankruptcy code

[…]

(U.S., filed October 27, 2023): Arguing that the bankruptcy code authorizes courts to approve nonconsensual third-party release and that third-party releases are important tools for addressing mass tort claims efficiently and fairly.  Bankruptcy courts can confirm plans containing nonconsensual third-party releases consistent with due process requirements.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Rodriguez v. Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana

Texas|2023

(TX, filed September 22, 2023): Arguing that the plain language

[…]

(TX, filed September 22, 2023): Arguing that the plain language of Chapter 542A forecloses attorneys’ fees where the amount to be awarded in the judgment is zero. Interpreting insurance statutes according to their plain language ensures predictability and stability. The statute ties attorneys’ fees to a “judgment” not to an appraisal or other dispute resolution mechanism.  

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On February, 2, 2024, the Court ruled that under Texas law, an insurer’s payment of an appraisal award precludes the recovery of attorney’s fees.

View

Etheridge v. Samsung SDI Co.

|5th Circuit|2023

(5th Circ., filed September 22, 2023): Arguing that due process

[…]

(5th Circ., filed September 22, 2023): Arguing that due process requires a “strong relationship” among the defendant, the forum and the litigation. No “strong relationship” exists where a claim arises independent of a defendant’s deliberate efforts to serve a market. Neither a plaintiff’s actions nor a third-party’s actions can create a “strong relationship” between the defendant and the forum.  

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

American Petroleum Institute et. al. v. State of Minnesota

|SCOTUS|2023

(U.S., filed September 21, 2023): Arguing that global climate change

[…]

(U.S., filed September 21, 2023): Arguing that global climate change is not traditional state tort or consumer lawThe development, funding and litigation of climate change lawsuits brought by state and local governments further demonstrates their interstate nature.   

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Dupuis v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, Maine

Maine|2023

(ME., filed September 15, 2023): Arguing that reviving time-barred claims

[…]

(ME., filed September 15, 2023): Arguing that reviving time-barred claims undermines Maine’s civil justice system.  This Court has repeatedly indicated that the legislature cannot revive time-barred claims and that is consistent with a majority of states.  

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Carey v. CSX

Kentucky|2023

(Ky. App., filed September 8, 2023): Arguing that failing to

[…]

(Ky. App., filed September 8, 2023): Arguing that failing to apply the qualified privilege in this case will deter individuals, employers and insurers from reporting suspicious claims activity. In a wide range of cases, identification of suspicious claims activity has led to investigations that have revealed fraud. The risk of fraud is mass tort litigation is particularly high.  

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

American Honda Motor Co. v. Milburn

Texas|2023

(Tex., filed August 30, 2023): Arguing that Sec. 82.008 “Compliance

[…]

(Tex., filed August 30, 2023): Arguing that Sec. 82.008 “Compliance with Government Standards” protects manufacturers from tort liability if their products comply with all federal safety standards. For Section 82.008 to have meaning, courts must distinguish whether a regulation as a whole is inadequate from whether a particular product is defective. Plaintiff’s experts here did not provide the type of evidence necessary to overcome the Section 82.008(a) defense by establishing the inadequacy of federal safety standards. A fundamental principle of products-liability law is that a manufacturer need not destroy a product’s utility to make it safer. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

E.I. DuPont de Nemours v. Abbott

|SCOTUS|2023

(U.S., filed August 4, 2023): Arguing that the expansion of

[…]

(U.S., filed August 4, 2023): Arguing that the expansion of offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel to mass tort bellwether trials is a question of exceptional importance. The lower court’s unprecedented contraction of defendants’ trial rights violates core constitutional guarantees. The lower court’s holding threatens the bellwether system that is critical to managing the massive federal MDL docket and controlling litigation costs for American businesses. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

In re Bestwall LLC

|4th Circuit|2023

(4th Circ., filed July 24, 2023): Urging the court to

[…]

(4th Circ., filed July 24, 2023): Urging the court to deny en banc review and uphold the panel’s decisionArguing that bankruptcy is an effective and efficient way of addressing mass tort litigation claimsState sovereign issues are not undermined by the majority’s decision and narrowing the scope of bankruptcy jurisdiction would undermine the purposes of Chapter 11.  

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

Edwards v. Scapa Waycross

South Carolina|2023

(S.C., filed July 19, 2023): Arguing that cumulative exposure testimony

[…]

(S.C., filed July 19, 2023): Arguing that cumulative exposure testimony is inconsistent with the scientific dose principle and substantial factor causation. Many courts have rejected the “cumulative exposure” approach as a mere relabeling of unscientific “every exposure” testimony. 


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

In re Antero

Colorado|2023

(Co., filed June 28, 2023): Arguing that preserving litigants’ access

[…]

(Co., filed June 28, 2023): Arguing that preserving litigants’ access to the right to appeal adverse judgments is an important matter worthy of legislative attention. Unlimited appeal bond requirements threaten defendants’ right to appeal. The Colorado General Assembly’s policy determination rationally balanced judgment creditors’ interests in ensuring recovery with preserving judgment debtors’ right to obtain appellate review in a manner that is consistent with many other states.   

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On December 4, 2023, the Court agreed with ATRA’s position and upheld the state’s statutory limit on appeal bonds

View

Carr v. Google

|9th Circuit|2023

(9th Cir., to be filed June 15, 2023): Arguing that

[…]

(9th Cir., to be filed June 15, 2023): Arguing that the District Court erred in certifying an overwhelmingly uninjured damages class. Certified damages classes must exclude the uninjured. Even if the uninjured could be damages class members, individualized inquiries into injury here create a predominance problem. The problem of uninjured class members requires rigorous analysis. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case settled
View

Gebert v. Sears

Colorado|2023

(CO Intermediate Court, filed April 13, 2023): Arguing that the

[…]

(CO Intermediate Court, filed April 13, 2023): Arguing that the state’s statutory limit on noneconomic damages is constitutional.

View Amicus Brief 


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On November 8, 2023, the Court upheld the statutory limit on noneconomic damages. 

View

Edwards v. Scapa Waycross Inc.

South Carolina|2023

(S.C., filed April 12, 2023): Urging the Court to grant

[…]

(S.C., filed April 12, 2023): Urging the Court to grant the petition because the Court of Appeals applied a causation standard that is inconsistent with South Carolina law and the majority rule nationwide. Also, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s additur and setoff rulings. The errors impact South Carolina’s asbestos litigation environment. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court granted cert
View

Jolly v. General Electric Co.

South Carolina|2023

(S.C., filed March 24, 2023): Urging the Court to reverse the

[…]

(S.C., filed March 24, 2023): Urging the Court to reverse the trial court’s granting of a new trial nisi additur because the trial court and Court of Appeals failed to follow precedent, applying an outlier approach that essentially gave the trial court absolute discretion to replace the jury’s determination of damages. Also, the Court should reverse the trial court’s setoff calculation, which utilized plaintiffs’ unilateral allocation of settlement proceeds to avoid a complete setoff. The errors in this case impact South Carolina’s asbestos litigation environment.   

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Colgate v. Bader

California|2023

(CA., filed February 28, 2023) – Supporting petition for review:

[…]

(CA., filed February 28, 2023)Supporting petition for review: Arguing that the lower court failed to protect the jury from so-called “expert” opinions that are “unsupported” or “speculative” as required by Sargon. In place of these well-established principles, the Court of Appeal set forth a new and confusing method for challenging the admissibility of expert opinions, establishing “two regimes of admissibility rules for expert testimony on scientific topics in CaliforniaThe Court of Appeal also adopted a new, heightened standard for preserving issues for appeal that needs to be reviewed by the Court.  

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

T.S. v. Holy Cross

Louisiana|2023

(La., filed April 3, 2023): Arguing that the Louisiana Supreme Court has

[…]

(La., filed April 3, 2023): Arguing that the Louisiana Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Louisiana Constitution as prohibiting the legislative revival of prescribed claims. This Court’s plurality decision in Chance does not support revival of prescribed claims. Finally, arguing that permitting a violation of vested rights would undermine the purpose of prescription defenses generally, significantly damaging the balance of litigation interests and the stability of insurance markets.

View Amicus Brief

 


[hide]

Court remanded case back to lower court

On June 27, the Court remanded the case back to the trial court without ruling on the constitutionality of the statute. 

View

Thompson v. Henderson

|SCOTUS|2023

(U.S., filed March 31, 2023) Arguing the Court should review

[…]

(U.S., filed March 31, 2023) Arguing the Court should review the decision by the Washington Supreme Court because it violates this Court’s precedents by creating an effectively irrebuttable presumption of racism. The decision will create unfair disadvantages for litigants—and particularly corporate litigants—by tying the hands of trial lawyers. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

In Re LTL Management

|3rd Circuit|2023

(Third Circ., filed February 21, 2023): Arguing that bankruptcy court

[…]

(Third Circ., filed February 21, 2023): Arguing that bankruptcy court resolution of mass tort liabilities has been a key tool for U.S. businesses since the bankruptcy code was enacted in 1978.  The Panel’s novel interpretation of financial distress is not supported by precedent and warrants consideration by an en banc panel of this courtThe Panel’s standard for financial distress is unworkable and divorced from the reality businesses face in the context of mass torts.

View Amicus Brief 


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position
View

New Mexico v. Gilead Sciences Inc.

New Mexico|2023

(N.M., filed January 26, 2023): Arguing that the pure “steam

[…]

(N.M., filed January 26, 2023): Arguing that the pure “steam of commerce” theory conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court Precedent requiring purposeful availment and subverts the values of fairness and federalism underlying the doctrine of specific jurisdiction.  Adopting the pure “stream of commerce” theory will impose needless costs and uncertainty on businesses throughout the nation.

View Full Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Aurora Public Schools v. Saupe

Colorado|2023

(Co., filed January 17, 2023): Arguing that reviving time-barred claims

[…]

(Co., filed January 17, 2023): Arguing that reviving time-barred claims undermines Colorado’s civil justice system. Also, arguing that codifying a negligence-based cause of action, and applying the new statutory action to conduct alleged as far back as 1960, constitutes impermissible retrospective legislation and is unconstitutional. 

View Full Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position
View

Monsanto v. Kilgore

Arkansas|2023

(Ark., filed January 6, 2023): Urging the Arkansas Supreme Court

[…]

(Ark., filed January 6, 2023): Urging the Arkansas Supreme Court to adopt the Apex Doctrine and require parties seeking depositions of high-level corporate officers to show that the officer has unique and relevant personal knowledge, and that the information cannot be obtained through other less intrusive discovery. The Apex Doctrine balances between the need for discovery and the burden placed on opposing parties when discovery becomes abusive. 

View Full Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court denied cert

On June 27, 2023, the Court denied the writ of mandamus. 

View

Hardwick v. 3M

|6th Circuit|2022

(6th Circ., filed December 23, 2022): Arguing that the district

[…]

(6th Circ., filed December 23, 2022): Arguing that the district court is attempting to fund an investigation of PFAS chemicals through an injunction-based class action.  Left undisturbed, the certification order will yield disastrous short-term and long-term consequences.

View Full Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On November 27, 2023, the Court agreed with ATRA’s position and dismissed the class action for lack of standing. 

View

In re Aearo Technologies

|7th Circuit|2022

(7th Circ., filed December 19, 2022): Arguing that the use

[…]

(7th Circ., filed December 19, 2022): Arguing that the use of bankruptcy to address litigation claims is a valid bankruptcy purpose.  It has a long history of effectively managing the extraordinary costs and inefficiencies of mass tort litigation that may bankrupt a company.

View Full Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Johnson & Johnson v. State of California

|SCOTUS|2022

(U.S., filed December 15, 2022): Arguing that the Court should

[…]

(U.S., filed December 15, 2022): Arguing that the Court should grant certiorari to place rational boundaries on the unpredictable and near limitless imposition of “per violation” civil penalties.  Also, the Court should provide a constitutional backstop when the lack of clarity under unfair or deceptive acts and practices (UDAP) laws leads to arbitrary punishment.  Lastly, the court should provide consistency between safeguards governing arbitrary and excessive punishment in other areas. 

View Full Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

Vanderventer v. Hyundai Motor Co.

Wisconsin|2022

(Wis., filed December 8, 2022): Urging the Court to review

[…]

(Wis., filed December 8, 2022): Urging the Court to review the case and correct the Court of Appeals’ transformation of a presumption that a compliant product is not defective into a mechanism for plaintiffs to introduce irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence.  Also, urging the Court to correct the misuse of evidence of subsequent remedial measures to rebut a manufacturer’s general defense or preemptively “impeach” testimony a defendant has not offered.  Lastly, urging the Court to review the lower court’s decision to allow engineers to offer novel, untested theories and medical doctors to opine on product design. 

View Full Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

Lousteau v. Holy Cross

Louisiana|5th Circuit|2022

(5th Circ., filed November 30, 2022): Arguing that the revival

[…]

(5th Circ., filed November 30, 2022): Arguing that the revival of certain claims under Section 2 of Louisiana Act No. 322, which passed unanimously in the 2021 Louisiana Legislative Session, is an impermissible divestment of a vested right under the Louisiana Due Process Clause, Louisiana Constitution Art. 1 § 2. 

View Full Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Delaware v. Monsanto

Delaware|2022

(Del., filed on November 3, 2022): Arguing against the improper

[…]

(Del., filed on November 3, 2022): Arguing against the improper expansion of the state’s public nuisance and trespass laws to cover PCB contamination. 

View Full Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On June 22, 2023, the Court expanded the state’s public nuisance doctrine to cover harms caused by PCBs. 

View

Elegant Massage LLC v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co.

|4th Circuit|2022

(4th COA, filed on November 1, 2022): If allowed to

[…]

(4th COA, filed on November 1, 2022): If allowed to stand, the district court’s lax application of Rule 23’s otherwise stringent requirements would impermissibly allow class certification in countless cases involving nothing more than standardized contracts. Improperly certified class actions pose enormous consequences for American businesses, their employees, and their customers. 

View Full Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Glenhaven Healthcare LLC v. Saldana

|SCOTUS|2022

(U.S., filed September 30, 2022): Urging the Court to grant

[…]

(U.S., filed September 30, 2022): Urging the Court to grant the petition of certiari in order to clarify the proper interpretation of a federal statute (the PREP Act) regulating the nation’s emergency response during a once-in-a-century pandemic and other global health emergencies. The PREP Act should be recognized as a “complete preemption” statute allowing removal of a broad class of tort claims arising from the administration of pandemic countermeasures. The lower court decision undermines the PREP Act’s critical safeguards for front-line responders and creates a circuit split.  

Click to access 2022-09-30-Saldana-Amicus-FINAL13118.pdf


[hide]

Court denied cert

November 21, 2022, the Court denied the petition for certiorari. 

View

George v. Progressive Waste Solutions of LA Inc.

Louisiana|2022

(La., filed September 19, 2022): Arguing that the courts must

[…]

(La., filed September 19, 2022): Arguing that the courts must serve as gatekeepers against artificially-inflated medical expenses and other abusive litigation practices.  Louisiana courts have adopted and applied a narrowly tailored application of the collateral source rule that properly conforms with the compensatory goal of tort recovery.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Doe v. Niagara Falls City School District and LaSalle Junior High School

New York|2022

(N.Y. 4th App., filed September 14, 2022): Arguing that reviving

[…]

(N.Y. 4th App., filed September 14, 2022): Arguing that reviving time-barred claims undermines New York’s civil justice system and that invalidating the CVA’s claims-revival provision is consistent with the majority approach among states.  Additionally, arguing that CVA’s revival of time-barred claims violates due process under the New York State Constitution.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway

|SCOTUS|2022

(U.S., filed September 6, 2022): Arguing that Pennsylvania’s law requiring out-of-state

[…]

(U.S., filed September 6, 2022): Arguing that Pennsylvania’s law requiring out-of-state companies to submit to jurisdiction as a requirement of registering to do business in the state is unconstitutional.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Hardwick v. 3M

|6th Circuit|2022

(6th COA, filed March 28, 2022): Supporting a petition to

[…]

(6th COA, filed March 28, 2022): Supporting a petition to review the class certification in PFAS litigation. Arguing that the district court is attempting to fund an investigation of PFAS chemicals through an injunction-based class action. Left undisturbed, the certification order will yield disastrous short-term and long-term consequences. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On September 9, 2022, the Court granted the petition for class certification review. 

View

McKinney v. Goins

North Carolina|2022

(N.C., filed on September 8, 2022) Urging the high court

[…]

(N.C., filed on September 8, 2022) Urging the high court to uphold the lower court’s decision to invalidate the revival provision of the state’s Safe Child Act.  Arguing that invalidating this provision is consistent with the majority approach among states and that reviving time-barred claims undermines North Carolina’s civil justice system.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

In re LTL Management, LLC

|3rd Circuit|2022

(3rd Circ., filed on August 22, 2022): Argues that the

[…]

(3rd Circ., filed on August 22, 2022): Argues that the use of bankruptcy to address litigation claims is a valid bankruptcy purpose that has been historically recognized by courts across the country.   Resolution of mass-tort liabilities in bankruptcy court has been a key tool for U.S. businesses since the Bankruptcy Code was first enacted in 1978. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position
View

Haas v. State Farm

Oregon|2022

(Or., filed on July 19, 2022): Addressing the application of

[…]

(Or., filed on July 19, 2022): Addressing the application of the but for causation instruction or substantial factor instruction in situations such as when a plaintiff has a significant pre-existing condition.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Ruth v. Elderwood

New York|2022

(NY App. Div., filed on July 29, 2022): Arguing that

[…]

(NY App. Div., filed on July 29, 2022): Arguing that the governor’s repeal of New York’s COVID-19 safe harbor provision in Article 30-D of the Public Health Law (Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (“EDTPA) should not apply retroactively.  The presumption against retroactive application is deeply rooted in fundamental principles of fairness and serves the public interest.  

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Simon v. Ethicon

Ohio|2022

(Oh., filed July 18, 2022): Arguing that the decision of

[…]

(Oh., filed July 18, 2022): Arguing that the decision of the lower court dislodges longstanding Ohio products liability law and creates an outlier rule for circumstantial evidence of manufacturing defects.  

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Simon v. Larreategui

Ohio|2022

(Oh., filed July 18, 2022): Arguing that the decision of

[…]

(Oh., filed July 18, 2022): Arguing that the decision of the lower court dislodges longstanding Ohio products liability law and creates an outlier rule for circumstantial evidence of manufacturing defects.  

View Full Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court denied cert

On September 22, 2022, denied the petition for certiari. 

View

Sam Doe v. The Diocese of Lafayette

Louisiana|2022

Arguing the lower courts erroneously interpreted Louisiana’s Constitution to permit

[…]

Arguing the lower courts erroneously interpreted Louisiana’s Constitution to permit the revival of prescribed claims and the elimination of vested rights. Urging the court to grant the writ application and consider the full impact of this decision on Louisiana law. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Tershakovec et. al. v. Ford Motor Co.

|11th Circuit|2022

(11th COA, filed May 18, 2022): Addressing presumptions of reliance

[…]

(11th COA, filed May 18, 2022): Addressing presumptions of reliance for fraud claims and whether implied warranty claims can proceed when it is not inevitable that customers will experience the defect. Arguing that fraud claims are classically ill-suited for class certification. Presumptions of reliance, causation and materiality are inappropriate for purchases of consumer goods driven by idiosyncratic personal preference.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller PLLC

|SCOTUS|2021

Arguing that emotional damages should not be allowed under the

[…]

Arguing that emotional damages should not be allowed under the Americans with Disabilities Act nor the Rehabilitation Act.  

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On April 28, 2022, the Court agreed with ATRA’s position and held that emotional distress damages are not available for discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act. 

View

3M v. Amador

|SCOTUS|2022

(U.S., filed March 10, 2022): Arguing the Court should resolve

[…]

(U.S., filed March 10, 2022): Arguing the Court should resolve the standard governing admissibility of expert evidence and confirm the vitality of Daubert’s core holding. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Elegant Massage LLC v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co.

|4th Circuit|2022

(4th COA, filed March 2, 2022): Arguing that the Court

[…]

(4th COA, filed March 2, 2022): Arguing that the Court should review the district court’s erroneous application of Rule 23’s stringent requirements because it allowed class certification in countless cases involving nothing more than standardized contracts. The improperly certified class actions pose enormous consequences for American businesses, their employees, and their customers. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court granted cert
View

Purdue Pharma v. State of Washington

|2nd Circuit|2022

(2nd COA, filed February 18, 2022): Arguing that bankruptcy courts

[…]

(2nd COA, filed February 18, 2022): Arguing that bankruptcy courts have legal authority to issue nonconsensual third-party releases in circumstances where such releases are appropriate.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Davies v. Multicare Health Systems et. al.

Washington|2022

(Wa., filed January 31, 2022): Arguing that the lower court misapplied

[…]

(Wa., filed January 31, 2022): Arguing that the lower court misapplied the law to create a novel cause of action for informed consent that is inconsistent with the controlling statutes and long-settled case law on informed consent, duplicates a misdiagnosis claim, and is inconsistent with the concept of informed consent in health care. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Coates v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Florida|2022

(Fla., filed January 7, 2022): Arguing that under well-settled federal

[…]

(Fla., filed January 7, 2022): Arguing that under well-settled federal and Florida law, a punitive damages award that is 106.7 times a substantial compensatory damages award is unlawful on its face.  Well-settled federal and Florida law requires that punitive damages must be tied to the specific harm proved in the case.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On January 5, 2023, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of ATRA’s position.

View

In re: McKinsey & Co., Inc. National Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation

California|2022

(N.D. Cal., filed December 30, 2021): Urging the court to

[…]

(N.D. Cal., filed December 30, 2021): Urging the court to dismiss complaints filed by political subdivisions of States that have already resolved the same claims against the same defendant in a global settlement. Arguing that the municipality complaints undermine the state’s sovereign role in protecting the interests of their residents and are precluded by res judicata and by the states’ releases. Also arguing that municipality litigation imperils global settlements and dilutes recovery in public-harm cases.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Buchanan v. GM

Georgia|2021

(Ga., filed November 23, 2021): Arguing that the court should

[…]

(Ga., filed November 23, 2021): Arguing that the court should reverse a lower courts’ order to ensure that the deposition of a high-level executive is reserved for only when it is truly needed for the pursuit of justice, rather than an unjust attempt to gain an unwarranted litigation advantage irrespective of the facts. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position
View

Brandt v. Pompa

Ohio|2021

(Oh., filed November 23, 2021): Arguing that the state’s statutory limit

[…]

(Oh., filed November 23, 2021): Arguing that the state’s statutory limit on noneconomic damages is constitutional.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

In December 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled the cap was unconstitutional, as applied.  However, it did not strike down the cap in its entirety. 

View

Davies v. Multicare Health Systems et. al.

Washington|2021

(Wa., filed October 18, 2021): Urging the court to review

[…]

(Wa., filed October 18, 2021): Urging the court to review the lower court’s decision that misapplied the law to create a novel cause of action for informed consent that is inconsistent with the controlling statutes and long-settled case law on informed consent, duplicates a misdiagnosis claim, and is inconsistent with the concept of informed consent in health care. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position
View

Qaadir v. Figueroa

California|2021

(Ca., filed October 12, 2021): Urging the court to review a lower

[…]

(Ca., filed October 12, 2021): Urging the court to review a lower court’s decision that improperly allowed inflated damages based on billed medical charges. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position
View

Monsanto v. Hardeman

|SCOTUS|2021

(U.S., filed September 1, 2021): Supporting the petition for certiari. Arguing

[…]

(U.S., filed September 1, 2021): Supporting the petition for certiari. Arguing that the Court should resolve the conflicting constructions of the Daubert standard. Consistent nationwide evidentiary standards are essential, particularly in the mass tort context. The Ninth Circuit’s approach to Daubert for medical causation conflicts with other circuits, and leads to peculiar results.  Also arguing that the Court should grant certiorari to address the court of appeals’ anomalous preemption ruling. Uniformity in federal preemption—both under FIFRA and beyond—is an issue of immense importance to regulated businesses operating nationwide. The decision below disrupts uniformity, misapplies Bates, and brings confusion to the interpretation of identical preemption language.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

Speedway v. Jarrett

West Virginia

(W. Va., filed June 28, 2021): Arguing that imposing liability

[…]

(W. Va., filed June 28, 2021): Arguing that imposing liability on employers for employee conduct off site and after work hours is contrary to established law.  No affirmative employer conduct created the risk that an employee would drive under the influence of prescription medications.  Holding employers responsible for employees’ misuses of prescription medications is unsound deep-pocket jurisprudence.


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Ford Motor Co. v. Walker

Colorado|2021

(Co., filed August 18, 2021): Arguing the procedural sequence presented recurs

[…]

(Co., filed August 18, 2021): Arguing the procedural sequence presented recurs and justifies clarification of the post-judgment interest calculation.  The Court of Appeals interpretation relies on illusions and produces a distinction that has no rational justification. The existence of a rational basis for calculating postjudgment interest using a variable rate depends on including successful appeals vacating judgments for new trials. 

 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position
View

Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson

|SCOTUS|2021

(U.S., filed April 5, 2021): Urging the Court to review Missouri’s landmark

[…]

(U.S., filed April 52021): Urging the Court to review Missouri’s landmark decision affirming proper joinder of 22 plaintiffs’ claims, including 15 non-residents’ claims, & imposing a $2.24 billion judgment in talc litigation. While allowing multiple plaintiffs to litigate cases against a single defendant can create a more efficient judicial system, courts also need to ensure defendants’ due process rights are unimpaired.  Juries can be overwhelmed and inflamed by the sheer number of genuinely suffering plaintiffs before them.  Joinder also forces defendants to use limited resources to address issues that affect the entire proceeding, rather than attending to each plaintiff individually.  Finally, juries may have trouble keeping the facts of each plaintiff straight.  

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

Allergan PLC v. The City of Glendale et. al.

Arizona|2021

 (Ariz., filed March 26, 2021): Urging the court to review a lower

[…]

 (Ariz., filed March 26, 2021): Urging the court to review a lower court’s decision to expand liability under the state’s public nuisance statute to manufacturers, distributors, marketers and sellers of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Connors

|SCOTUS|2021

(U.S., filed on March 24, 2021): Arguing that by creating a rule that

[…]

(U.S., filed on March 24, 2021): Arguing that by creating a rule that abstention requires only general assessments and not case-specific inquiries, there will be no meaningful check on the important relationship between State AGs and private attorneys.  The Ninth Circuit’s separation of abstention from any meaningful consideration of a state’s sovereign interest has important downstream consequences. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On June 21, 2o21, the Court denied the petition for cert. 

View

Janssen Pharmaceuticals v. A.Y.

|SCOTUS|2021

(U.S., filed March 8, 2021): Urging the Court to address whether FDA

[…]

(U.S., filed March 8, 2021): Urging the Court to address whether FDA regulations permit a manufacturer unilaterally to implement an off-label warning via a CBE or does the addition of an off-label warning require FDA approval.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

In re Exxon 

Texas|2021

(Tx.,filed February 9, 2021): Arguing that plaintiffs’ attorneys have found

[…]

(Tx.,filed February 9, 2021): Arguing that plaintiffs’ attorneys have found a way to circumvent the “paid or incurred” rule through use of letters of protection to medical providers. The result is the admission of evidence from medical providers at trial about a plaintiff’s medical expenses that looks nothing like the reasonable rates they normally charge, but instead has everything to do with maximizing their own recovery along with the plaintiff’s. The result is unfair jury trials in personal injury suits because defendants—with no ability to conduct discovery on the provider’s reasonable medical charges for the same procedure in the same area—cannot adequately defend themselves. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position
View

In re K&L Auto Crushers, LLC and Thomas Gothard Jr.

Texas|2021

(Tx., filed February 9, 2021).  Arguing that plaintiffs’ attorneys have

[…]

(Tx., filed February 9, 2021).  Arguing that plaintiffs’ attorneys have found a way to circumvent the “paid or incurred” rule through use of letters of protection to medical providers. The result is the admission of evidence from medical providers at trial about a plaintiff’s medical expenses that looks nothing like the reasonable rates they normally charge, but instead has everything to do with maximizing their own recovery along with the plaintiff’s. The result is unfair jury trials in personal injury suits because defendants—with no ability to conduct discovery on the provider’s reasonable medical charges for the same procedure in the same area—cannot adequately defend themselves. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On May 28, 2021, the Court agreed with ATRA’s position and conditionally  granted Defendant K & L Auto Crusher’s petition for mandamus relief. 

View

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez

|SCOTUS|2021

(U.S., filed February 8, 2021): Urging the Court to review

[…]

(U.S., filed February 8, 2021): Urging the Court to review whether a lead plaintiff who is injured satisfies the Rule 23 typicality requirement for those who are not. The Court should define the scope of a rigorous analysis for typicality under Rule 23 (A)(3). Ensuring typicality of injury would help avoid problems caused by uninjured class members.  

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Ford Motor Company v. Walker

Colorado|2021

(Co., filed February 4, 2021):  Urging the Court to review

[…]

(Co., filed February 4, 2021):  Urging the Court to review the case because the procedural sequence presented recurs and justifies clarification of the post-judgment interest calculation.  The Court of Appeals interpretation relies on illusions and produces a distinction that has no rational justification. 

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position
View

General Motors LLC v. Buchanan

Georgia|2020

(Ga. Ct. App., filed November 17, 2020): Arguing that the court

[…]

(Ga. Ct. App., filed November 17, 2020): Arguing that the court should reverse the trial court’s order to ensure that the deposition of a high-level executive is reserved for only when it is truly needed for the pursuit of justice, rather than an unjust attempt to gain an unwarranted litigation advantage irrespective of the facts. 

 


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position
View

Oklahoma v. Johnson & Johnson

Oklahoma|2020

(Ok., filed October 19, 2020): Arguing that the trial court

[…]

(Ok., filed October 19, 2020): Arguing that the trial court inappropriately expanded the state’s public nuisance law. The trial court jettisoned traditional limitations on nuisance law and endorsed a public-nuisance theory that would virtually guarantee limitless liability for Oklahoma businesses. The trial court unfairly and unconstitutionally pinned the claimed financial costs of the opioid crisis on a single defendant.

Download Amicus Brief As Filed


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Carl v. Johnson & Johnson

New Jersey|2020

(N.J., filed October 5, 2020): Urging the New Jersey Supreme

[…]

(N.J., filed October 5, 2020): Urging the New Jersey Supreme Court to review a lower court’s incorrect application of the state’s expert evidence standard.  Arguing that the Court needs to overturn the decision to reinforce the message of its opinion in In re Accutane.  The opinion, if not reversed, will leave trial courts with great uncertainty as to the gatekeeping role in New Jersey’s many drug, tort and product lawsuits.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson

Missouri|2020

(Mo., August 14, 2020): Urging the Court to review the

[…]

(Mo., August 14, 2020): Urging the Court to review the appellate court’s decision affirming personal jurisdiction over 15 non-residents’ claims against non-resident defendant & imposing $2.24 billion judgment in talc litigation.

Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court denied cert

November 3, 2020, the Missouri Supreme Court refused to review the lower court’s decision allowing the verdict to stand.

View

Devey v. Johnson & Johnson

South Carolina|2020

(S.C., filed August 17, 2020): Arguing against the consolidation of

[…]

(S.C., filed August 17, 2020): Arguing against the consolidation of two very different asbestos cases involving different injuries and products.  Consolidated trials are highly prejudicial to defendants and raise due process concerns.  There are few, if any, efficiencies to be gained by consolidating asbestos cases.

SC Chamber et al. amicus – Devey and Dupree v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 2020-000645


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Effler v. Purdue Pharma

Tennessee|2020

(Tenn., filed May 26, 2020): Arguing that the legislature did

[…]

(Tenn., filed May 26, 2020): Arguing that the legislature did not give district attorneys standing to file unauthorized Drug Dealer Liability Act. This litigation will increase locality litigation abuse. Also arguing that the DDLA imposes liability on criminal drug dealers, not manufacturers of lawful medicines. drug dealers, not manufacturers of lawful medicines.

View Effler v. Purdue Pharma Amicus Brief


[hide]

Court remanded case back to lower court

On December 17, 2020, the Supreme Court of Tennessee in part ruled in favor of defendant pharmaceutical companies and held that District Attorneys did not have standing to sue under the Tennessee Drug Dealer Liability Act.  However, the Court ruled in favor of Baby Doe plaintiffs and found that they alleged sufficient allegations to state a claim. 

View

Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc.

Tennessee|2020

(Tenn., filed April 13, 2020): Arguing that equipment manufacturers do

[…]

(Tenn., filed April 13, 2020): Arguing that equipment manufacturers do not owe a duty to warn end users about alleged hazards in asbestos-containing external insulation or replacement gaskets and packing made or sold by third parties and affixed to equipment post-sale.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On January 4, 2020, the Court held manufacturers have no duty to warn with respect to products manufactured and sold by others.

View

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. v. Painters Fund

|SCOTUS|2020

(U.S., filed March 27, 2020): Urging the Court to review

[…]

(U.S., filed March 27, 2020): Urging the Court to review whether the chain of causation between a manufacturer’s allegedly false statements and end payments for prescription drugs is too attenuated to satisfy RICO’s proximate cause requirement.  Also, to address whether everyone who pays for a product with an alleged latent risk or defect suffer injury sufficient to confer Article III standing.


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

In Re DCH Healthcare Authority et al. v. Purdue Pharma

Alabama|2020

(Ala., filed March 25, 2020): Arguing the Court should grant

[…]

(Ala., filed March 25, 2020): Arguing the Court should grant review to enforce the Legislature’s venue reforms and protect the judiciary from a perception of impropriety.  Also arguing that the Court should grant review to stay within mainstream American jurisprudence.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On December 31, 2020, the Court held that the venue was proper in Conecuh County because it found that the allegations arose out of the same transactions and occurrences, which it admittedly defined broadly stating that these terms can have “flexible” meanings. Second, it denied defendants’ forum noneconveniens motion saying that the plaintiffs’ forum is given deference, in national cases with multiple parties it is more difficult to show that one forum is meaningfully better than others, and that defendants did not provide the type of specific evidence that would be significantly inconvenienced by having the proceedings in Conecuh County. 

View

Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighty Judicial District Court (“Gullet”) and Bandemer v. Ford Motor Company

|SCOTUS|2020

(U.S., filed March 6, 2020): Arguing that a manufacturer should

[…]

(U.S., filed March 6, 2020): Arguing that a manufacturer should not be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in a forum where the manufacturer has in-forum contacts but those in-forum contacts are unconnected to the plaintiff’s claim.

Download Amicus Brief PDF


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position
View

Scholle v. Delta Airlines

Colorado|2020

(Colo., filed February 24, 2020): Arguing that a plaintiff cannot

[…]

(Colo., filed February 24, 2020): Arguing that a plaintiff cannot claim as damages expenses submitted for medical treatment in the workers’ compensation system that are void and unenforceable as a matter of law.  It would allow a plaintiff to submit as “reasonable value” expenses that are legally void under Colorado law.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position
View

Toyota v. Reavis

Texas|2020

(Tex. App., filed February 27, 2020): Arguing that long-settled Texas

[…]

(Tex. App., filed February 27, 2020): Arguing that long-settled Texas law limits evidence of unrelated accidents in product liability cases. Also arguing that the Texas statutory presumption of non-liability for manufacturers meeting federal safety standards serves important purposes.  To invoke the exception to the presumption of non-liability, a party should be required to present specific types of relevant evidence.


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Actavis Holdco. Inc v. Connecticut

|SCOTUS|2020

(U.S., filed February 27, 2020): Urging the U.S. Supreme Court

[…]

(U.S., filed February 27, 2020): Urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case involving the relevance requirement of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The lower court prohibited defendants from conducting any relevance review prior to production.


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

McClay v. Airport Management Services, LLC

Tennessee|2019

(Tenn., filed July 2019): Arguing that the state’s statutory limit

[…]

(Tenn., filed July 2019): Arguing that the state’s statutory limit on noneconomic damages is constitutional.  It responds to a rise in pain and suffering awards by restoring predictability to the civil justice systems and the legislature has the authority to modify common law rights and remedies.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On February 27, 2020, the Tennessee Supreme Court agreed with ATRA’s position and upheld the statutory limits. 

View

Berroteran v. Superior Court

California|2020

(Cal., filed January 28, 2020): Arguing that the high court

[…]

(Cal., filed January 28, 2020): Arguing that the high court should clarify the circumstances under which depositions of a defendant’s own employees, taken by plaintiffs in a class action, may be introduced into evidence against that defendant by a different plaintiff asserting only individual claims.


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Busch v. McMinnis Waste Systems

Oregon|2019

(Or., filed October 24, 2019): Arguing that the state’s statutory

[…]

(Or., filed October 24, 2019): Arguing that the state’s statutory limit on noneconomic damages is constitutional. Upholding the state’s statutory limit is consistent with the court’s respect for the legislature’s role in shaping the civil justice system.  Noneconomic damage limits respond to a rise in pain and suffering awards and their unpredictability.

Read our full amicus brief.

 


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On July 9, 2020, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the statute violated the Oregon Constitution’s Remedy Clause. 

View

Gregg v. Ameriprise

Pennsylvania|2019

(PA., filed September 5, 2019): Arguing that the lower court

[…]

(PA., filed September 5, 2019): Arguing that the lower court incorrectly imposed a strict liability reading of the “Catch All” provision of the Unfair Trade Practices Act.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On February 17, 2021, the Court disagreed with ATRA’s position and held that intent to deceive is not required to be held liable under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

View

Bandemer v. Ford Motor Company

|SCOTUS|2019

(U.S., filed October 22, 2019): Arguing that a manufacturer should

[…]

(U.S., filed October 22, 2019): Arguing that a manufacturer should not be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in a forum where the manufacturer has in-forum contacts but those in-forum contacts are unconnected to the plaintiff’s claim.


[hide]

Court granted cert
View

Wagner v. Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Inc.

Colorado|2019

(Colo., filed October 21, 2019): Arguing that the majority decision

[…]

(Colo., filed October 21, 2019): Arguing that the majority decision below upended settled law and tort principles on causation by failing to undertake the substantial factor and predominant cause analyses and by holding that a landowner can be liable for the premeditated acts of a mass shooter. Public policy and the impacts to landowners of a contrary result align with finding no landowner liability for the premeditated acts of a mass shooter.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position
View

Sullivan v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.

|2nd Circuit|2019

(2nd Circ., filed September 13, 2019): Arguing that the lower court

[…]

(2nd Circ., filed September 13, 2019): Arguing that the lower court improperly certified a medical monitoring class and an issue class on liability for property claims in PFOA litigation.


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Burningham v. Wright

Utah|2018

(Utah, filed October 5, 2018): The brief addressed the unavoidably

[…]

(Utah, filed October 5, 2018): The brief addressed the unavoidably unsafe exception to strict liability in design defects recognized in the Restatement (Second) of Torts and whether it applies to implanted medical devices.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On September 5, 2019, the Utah Supreme Court quickly dispensed with any discussion of comment k and PMA-approved devices because state law tort claims concerning those devices are preempted. 

View

Adamyan v. Pfizer

|SCOTUS|2019

(U.S., filed July 26, 2019): Arguing that sua sponte orders

[…]

(U.S., filed July 26, 2019): Arguing that sua sponte orders by state courts consolidating the claims of 100 or more plaintiffs support removal under the mass action provision of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

Bickerstaff v. SunTrust

Georgia|2019

(Ga., filed May 15, 2019): Arguing that jury-trial waivers are

[…]

(Ga., filed May 15, 2019): Arguing that jury-trial waivers are enforceable in Georgia. Also arguing that the court should clarify the law of severability and hold that courts should preserve and enforce promises that are distinct, rather than taking an approach to severability that erases substantial parts of the parties’ agreement by nullifying distinct provisions that can operate independently.


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Hammons v. Ethicon

Pennsylvania|2019

(Pennsylvania, filed on June 21, 2019): Arguing that the lower

[…]

(Pennsylvania, filed on June 21, 2019): Arguing that the lower court improperly exercised personal jurisdiction over the defendant based on activities in Pennsylvania that were unrelated to the tort claim.  Tying personal jurisdiction over out-of-state claims to the mere involvement of Pennsylvania businesses in the production process will lead national manufacturers to eschew local businesses.

View Amicus Brief


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Bickerstaff v. SunTrust

Georgia|2016

(Ga., filed May 15, 2019): Arguing that jury-trial waivers are

[…]

(Ga., filed May 15, 2019): Arguing that jury-trial waivers are enforceable in Georgia. Also arguing that the court should clarify the law of severability and hold that courts should preserve and enforce promises that are distinct, rather than taking an approach to severability that erases substantial parts of the parties’ agreement by nullifying distinct provisions that can operate independently.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position
View

Walsh v. BASF

Pennsylvania|2019

(Pa., filed May 15, 2019): Arguing that the lower court

[…]

(Pa., filed May 15, 2019): Arguing that the lower court failed to respect the discretionary rule of judicial gatekeeping when it allowed “junk science” into court room.  Also arguing that Pennsylvania law has always required evidence that a particular defendant’s product has caused a plaintiff’s particular injury, not that a category of products in the “aggregate” can cause a generalized category of disease.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On July 20, 2020, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision. 

View

Ford v. Hill

Georgia|2019

(Ga., filed in late April 2019): Arguing that the court

[…]

(Ga., filed in late April 2019): Arguing that the court should grant cert in order to establish clear and exacting standards for the imposition of civil “death penalty” sanctions, consistent with the requirements of due process.  Due process requires that a party subject to civil “death penalty” sanctions have immediate resort to the appellate courts.


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

Wagner v. Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Inc.

Colorado|2019

(Colo., filed April 11, 2019): Supporting a petition for cert

[…]

(Colo., filed April 11, 2019): Supporting a petition for cert arguing that the majority decision below upended settled law and tort principles on causation by failing to undertake the substantial factor and predominant cause analyses and by holding that a landowner can be liable for the premeditated acts of a mass shooter.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

In May 2020, the Court disagreed with ATRA’s position and denied summary judgment, finding Planned Parenthood could be liable.

View

Yebuah v. Center for Urological Treatment, PLC

Tennessee|2019

(Tenn. Ct. of App., filed March 18, 2019): Arguing that

[…]

(Tenn. Ct. of App., filed March 18, 2019): Arguing that the state’s limit on noneconomic damages in all personal injury cases is constitutional and does not infringe on the right to jury trial, nor does it violate the separation of powers or equal protection clause of the Tennessee Constitution.

On May 28, 2020, the court agreed with ATRA’s position and upheld the statutory limit on noneconomic damages in medical liability cases.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On May 28, 2020, the court agreed with ATRA’s position and upheld the statutory limit on noneconomic damages in medical liability cases. 

View

Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co.

|6th Circuit|2019

(6th Circ., filed January 23, 2019): Supporting petition for en

[…]

(6th Circ., filed January 23, 2019): Supporting petition for en banc review, arguing that the panel’s ruling is inconsistent with Tennessee’s longstanding presumption of favoring constitutionality and history of upholding civil justice reforms.  The panel ruling also is contrary to the vast majority of state courts, which have upheld statutory limits on punitive damages, and relies on an outlier decision.  Also arguing that the ruling is contrary to every federal circuit court that has considered the constitutionality of a state limit on damages.


[hide]

Court denied cert

On March 29, 2019, the Court denied the petition. 

View

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Searcy; Phillip Morris USA Inc. v. Boatright

|SCOTUS|2018

(U.S., filed December 20, 2018): Supporting a petition for cert,

[…]

(U.S., filed December 20, 2018): Supporting a petition for cert, arguing that class action defendants have a due process right to a judicial determination of every element of the plaintiff’s claim and that the lower court’s decision invites abusive “issue” class actions that harm American businesses.  Issue classes and broad preclusion rules inevitably lead to litigation abuses and harm consumers and businesses alike.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position
View

Behr Dayton Thermal Products LLC v. Martin

|SCOTUS|2018

(U.S., November 12, 2018): Supporting a petition for cert, arguing

[…]

(U.S., November 12, 2018): Supporting a petition for cert, arguing that the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation of Rule 23(c)(4) violated its text and structure and raises serious Seventh Amendment concerns.  Argues that the decision removes the most important limits on class proceedings and would allow district courts to certify “issue classes” essentially at will.


[hide]

Court denied cert

On March 19, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for cert. 

View

Case v. American Honda Motor Co.

California|2018

(Ca., filed September 27, 2018): Arguing that it is not

[…]

(Ca., filed September 27, 2018): Arguing that it is not sufficient for plaintiffs to merely allege a “theory” of defect liability- however unsupported by evidence- that could apply across the self-defined class.  Plaintiffs seeking class certification must supply the trial court with “substantial evidence… that common issues predominate” over individual issues.


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

Bahamas Surgery Center LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.

|9th Circuit|2018

(9th Circ., filed August 29, 2018): Arguing punitive damages exceeding

[…]

(9th Circ., filed August 29, 2018): Arguing punitive damages exceeding a 1:1 ratio are inconsistent with due process where there is a multi-million dollar compensatory damage award for a purely economic injury.  Supreme Court jurisprudence reserves punitive damage awards exceeding compensatory damages for cases involving low compensatory awards, physical harm, or exceptional circumstances.  Also arguing that due process requires a class action avoid using individualized evidence of class representatives as a shortcut for showing common classwide evidence.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On July 23, 2020, the Court found that the plaintiff, Bahamas Surgery Center, lacked standing because it had not purchased the gowns from defendant Halyard Health. As Bahamas Surgery Center lacked standing to sue in its own right, it could not bring claims on behalf of a class. With respect to Kimberly-Clark, the Ninth Circuit found that the trial court should have decertified the fraudulent concealment class because the materiality of the industry rating varied among class members. It remanded the case with an order to vacate and dismiss.

View

GlaxoSmithKline v. State of Louisiana

|SCOTUS|2018

(U.S., filed August 8, 2018): Arguing that a State cannot

[…]

(U.S., filed August 8, 2018): Arguing that a State cannot invoke sovereign immunity to avoid being bound by a class settlement and, instead, bring a new lawsuit making identical claims when the State was expressly included in the class, received notice of the action and settlement, and did not opt out.


[hide]

Case settled

On December 18, 2018, the petition for cert was dismissed.

View

Martin v. Behr Dayton Thermal Products LLC

|6th Circuit|2018

(6th Circ., filed August 6, 2018): Urging the en banc

[…]

(6th Circ., filed August 6, 2018): Urging the en banc court to grant a rehearing and reverse the lower court’s decision to certify an issue class under Rule 23 (c)(4) when Rule 23 (b)(3)’s requirements prohibit certiciation of a class for the relevant cause of action. The panel’s interpretation would render Rule 23 (b)(3)’s standards meaningless and allow certification of virtually any putative class action. It also raises serious Seventh Amendment concerns.


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Kapila v. Grant Thornton LLP

|11th Circuit|2018

(11th Circ., filed July 30, 2018): Arguing that the in

[…]

(11th Circ., filed July 30, 2018): Arguing that the in pari delicto defense should apply in cases involving bankruptcy trusts.  The defense prevents a wrongdoer from attempting to shift its liability to another that was involved to an equal or lesser extent in the improper conduct.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On March 22, 2019, the Court ruled in favor of ATRA’s position and affirmed the lower court’s decision. 

View

Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries

|SCOTUS|2018

(U.S., to be filed July 6, 2018): Arguing that the

[…]

(U.S., to be filed July 6, 2018): Arguing that the “bare metal” defense should be allowed to be asserted under maritime law.


[hide]

Court denied cert

On March 19, 2019, the Court denied the petition for cert. 

View

Pebley v. Santa Clara Organics

California|2018

(Cal., filed July 13, 2018): Arguing that the lower court

[…]

(Cal., filed July 13, 2018): Arguing that the lower court improperly allowed an insured plaintiff to recover medical damages based on billed charges when the plaintiff chose to receive treatment from a provider that takes a lien on tort recovery instead of seeking reimbursement from the insurer. California courts have previously concluded that billed medical charges do not reflect fair-market values and allowing evidence of billed charges as opposed to the amount actually paid provides a windfall for the plaintiff.


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Monsanto v. OEHHA

California|2018

(Cal., filed June 28, 2018): Arguing that the Labor Code’s

[…]

(Cal., filed June 28, 2018): Arguing that the Labor Code’s authority to determine which chemicals are added to the Proposition 65 list is unconstitutional because it is delegated to an entity that is not accountable to the California electorate.


[hide]

Case not yet decided

The court denied the petition for cert on August 20, 2018.

View

General Motors, LLC. V. Bavlsik

|SCOTUS|2018

(U.S., filed March 26, 2018): Arguing that the lower court

[…]

(U.S., filed March 26, 2018): Arguing that the lower court improperly ordered a damages-only retrial when the trial record contained strong indications the jury had originally reached an impermissible “compromise verdict.” A compromise verdict requires retrial on all issues so as to not erode fundamental Seventh Amendment guarantees.


[hide]

Court denied cert

On May 15, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for cert.

View

Bousamra v. Excela Health

Pennsylvania|2018

(Pa., filed March 12, 2018): Arguing that the court should

[…]

(Pa., filed March 12, 2018): Arguing that the court should extend the attorney client privilege and work product doctrines to media consultants to allow companies to integrate legal and communications functions when needed. Responsibilities of lawyers have evolved to include advancing and protecting the legal rights of its employer or client in the media.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On June 18, 2019, the Court ruled that the content was not protected by the attorney-client privilege, but they are privileged attorney work product and protected by the work product doctrine.

View

Alcon Laboratories et al. v. Cottrell

|SCOTUS|2018

(U.S., filed April 23, 2018): Arguing that the Court should

[…]

(U.S., filed April 23, 2018): Arguing that the Court should grant cert to clarify a clear circuit split. The Third Circuit’s novel theory of injury-by-inefficiency departs from fundamental principles of Article III standing, and if left undisturbed, the decision below will invite abusive class action litigation.


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

O’Malley v. Hospitality Staffing Solutions

California|2018

(Cal., filed April 10, 2018): Arguing that a residential maintenance

[…]

(Cal., filed April 10, 2018): Arguing that a residential maintenance worker, asked to check a guest room, does not have a duty to do more than knock on the door of that room, announce his presence, and then open the door and call out again to ascertain if anyone is in the room.  Requiring more than that, would expand the scope and application of legal duty in negligence actions to a determination by the trier- of-fact based solely on “what may have been [in hindsight] reasonably foreseeable.”


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

Gustavsen v. Alcon

|1st Circuit|2018

(1st Circ., filed April 11, 2018): Arguing that the plaintiffs’

[…]

(1st Circ., filed April 11, 2018): Arguing that the plaintiffs’ speculative claim that they might have paid less for a medication if defendants had packaged it more efficiently does not describe a cognizable injury in fact, and therefore, they lack standing.  Accepting plaintiffs’ theory would invite abusive class-action litigation.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On August 27, 2018, the court held that defendants could not change the drop size of an FDA-approved drug without prior FDA approval and thus that plaintiffs’ state-law claims were preempted.

View

In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation

|9th Circuit|2018

(9th Circ., filed March 19, 2018): Arguing that settlement classes

[…]

(9th Circ., filed March 19, 2018): Arguing that settlement classes are different from litigation classes and a court can certify a class for settlement purposes that would not be appropriate for certification in contested litigation. This allows businesses to promptly and fairly resolve consumer disputes and encourages other fair consumer class settlements.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On July 27, 2018, the Court issued a brief order vacating the three-judge panel’s rejection of the $200 million settlement and granted the request for rehearing en banc. 

View

Quisenberry v. Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc.

Virginia|2018

(Va., filed February 23, 2018): Arguing against adoption of the

[…]

(Va., filed February 23, 2018): Arguing against adoption of the theory of “take home exposure” in asbestos cases.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

Status: On October 11, 2018, the Court disagreed with ATRA’s position and adopted the theory of “take home exposure” in asbestos cases.

View

Torres v. BNSF Railways

New Mexico|2018

Torres v. BNSF Railway Company (New Mexico, filed February 12,

[…]

Torres v. BNSF Railway Company (New Mexico, filed February 12, 2018): Arguing against adoption of the theory of “take home exposure” in asbestos cases.


[hide]

Case not yet decided
View

Mayo v. Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund

Wisconsin|2018

(Wis., Filed February 5, 2018): Arguing that the statutory limit

[…]

(Wis., Filed February 5, 2018): Arguing that the statutory limit on noneconomic damages in medical liability cases is constitutional.

 


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On June 27, 2018, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of ATRA’s position and upheld the statutory limit on noneconomic damages in medical liability cases. 

View

U.S. ex. rel. Campie v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

|SCOTUS|2018

(U.S., to be filed in January 2018): Urging the Court

[…]

(U.S., to be filed in January 2018): Urging the Court to grant the petition for cert to address the materiality requirements of the FCA in Universal Health Services v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar (2016).


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

Juni v. Ford Motor Co.

New York|2018

(N.Y., Filed January 2018): Arguing that the Court should reject

[…]

(N.Y., Filed January 2018): Arguing that the Court should reject the “Every Exposure” and “Cumulative Exposure” theory in asbestos cases.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On November 27, 2018, the court rejected the theory of “cumulative exposure” and overturned the NYCAL verdict. 

China Agritech Inc. v. Resh

|SCOTUS|2018

(U.S., filed January 29, 2018): Arguing that the lower court improperly

[…]

(U.S., filed January 29, 2018): Arguing that the lower court improperly allowed stacked class actions and tolling of the applicable statute of limitations.   The Court’s decision in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah (1974), held that the commencement of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for all purported members of the class, but does not extend to a subsequent class action, after the denial of an initial class certification.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On June 11, 2018, the Court ruled in favor of ATRA’s position.

View

Dolin v. GSK

|7th Circuit|2018

(7th Circuit,filed January 29, 2018): Arguing that the Court should

[…]

(7th Circuit,filed January 29, 2018): Arguing that the Court should reject the theory of innovator liability.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On August 22, 2018, the 7th Circuit ruled that federal law preempted the plaintiff’s claim. GSK was barred from adding a warning about the risk of suicide. The court did not rule regarding innovator liability. 

View

In Re Effexor

|SCOTUS|2017

(U.S. to be filed December 22, 2017): Urging the Court

[…]

(U.S. to be filed December 22, 2017): Urging the Court to grant the petition for cert to address whether granting an exclusive license as part of a patent settlement can, by itself, represent a suspect “reverse payment.”


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

In Re Lipitor

|SCOTUS|2017

(U.S. to be filed December 22, 2017): Urging the Court

[…]

(U.S. to be filed December 22, 2017): Urging the Court to grant the petition for cert and address whether, at the pleading stage, a compromise of a damages claim can be transformed into a “reverse payment” by focusing solely on the value transferred by the manufacturer to the patent challenger, without considering the value such a compromise provides to the manufacturer.


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

McNair v. Johnson & Johnson

West Virginia|2017

(West Virginia, Filed December 14, 2017): Arguing that the court

[…]

(West Virginia, Filed December 14, 2017): Arguing that the court should reject the theory of innovator liability.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On May 11, 2018, the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of ATRA’s position and rejected the theory of innovator liability. 

View

Duffy v. CBS Corp.

Maryland|2017

(Md., filed November 11, 2017): Arguing that statutes of repose

[…]

(Md., filed November 11, 2017): Arguing that statutes of repose promote sound public policy by eliminating the specter of indefinite liability.  Claims barred under a statute of repose cannot be revived by subsequent legislation and courts have routinely upheld the constitutionality of statutes of repose.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On March 28, 2018, the court disagreed with ATRA’s position and held that the state’s statute of repose for improvements to real property does not bar asbestos personal injury claims where the date of the plaintiff’s last exposure to asbestos-containing products occurred on or before June 30, 1970.

View

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Graham

|SCOTUS|2017

Graham (U.S., filed October 19, 2017): Arguing that class action

[…]

Graham (U.S., filed October 19, 2017): Arguing that class action defendants have a due process right to a judicial determination of every element of a plaintiff’s claim.  The “actually decided” precondition to preclusion protects this right in the context of multiple adjudications.  Also arguing that the so-called “issue” classes coupled with novel applications of the preclusion doctrine can trample defendants’ due process rights.


[hide]

Court denied cert

On January 8, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert. 

View

In Re New York City Asbestos Litigation

New York|2017

(NY, filed October 6, 2017): Arguing that if the court

[…]

(NY, filed October 6, 2017): Arguing that if the court does not vacate the new CMO, it should, at a minimum, modify it to continue the longstanding deferral of punitive damages claims.  It also should modify the CMO to require plaintiffs to file all eligible asbestos trust claims early in the discovery process and specify that trust claims materials are admissible.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On March 22, 2018, the court ruled against ATRA’s position and upheld the current Case Management Order. 

View

Chrysler Group v. Walden

Georgia|2017

(Ga., filed August 31, 2017): Arguing the lower court erred

[…]

(Ga., filed August 31, 2017): Arguing the lower court erred by admitting CEO pay evidence because it creates extreme unfair prejudice and provokes a jury response based on passion and prejudice.  Also, arguing that considering the damages award only in isolation prevents a meaningful analysis for excursiveness.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

Status: On March 15, 2018, the court disagreed with ATRA’s position and affirmed the punitive damages award.

View

Rafferty v. Merck

Massachusetts|2017

(MA., filed August 25, 2017): Arguing that the Massachusetts Supreme

[…]

(MA., filed August 25, 2017): Arguing that the Massachusetts Supreme Court should reject the theory of innovator liability.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On March 16, 2018, the Massachusetts Supreme Court disagreed with ATRA’s position and adopted the theory of innovator liability. 

View

In re Lipitor

|4th Circuit|2017

(4th Circuit, filed July 8, 2017): Arguing that under Daubert, reliable

[…]

(4th Circuit, filed July 8, 2017): Arguing that under Daubert, reliable science does not involve result-seeking statistical hacking nor does it presume that effects observable at one dose apply to all doses.  Also arguing that MDL courts have the power to dismiss cases when plaintiffs fail to come forward with evidence on specific causation after being given a chance to do so.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On June 12, 2018, the Court ruled in favor of ATRA’s position. 

View

Chrysler v. Walden

Georgia|2017

(Ga., filed January 25, 2017): Arguing that the evidence and argument

[…]

(Ga., filed January 25, 2017): Arguing that the evidence and argument regarding the CEO’s compensation inflamed the jurors and improperly influenced their award.  Also arguing that the plaintiffs incited the jury to punish the defendant.


[hide]

Court granted cert

The court granted cert on June 30, 2017. 

View

Tyler v. American Optical Corporation

California|2017

(2nd App. Dist. Ca., filed May 10, 2017): Arguing that

[…]

(2nd App. Dist. Ca., filed May 10, 2017): Arguing that in asbestos exposure cases that do not involve an asbestos-containing product, the traditional “but for” causation standard should be used in cases alleging a failure to protect someone from harm.


[hide]

Case settled
View

Conagra Brands Inc. v. Briseno et. al.

|SCOTUS|2017

(U.S., filed May 12, 2017): Arguing that Rule 23 (b)(3)

[…]

(U.S., filed May 12, 2017): Arguing that Rule 23 (b)(3) authorizes class certification only where there is a practical method for class-wide adjudication that is consistent with due process and the “ascertainability” requirement flows directly from, and is compelled by, Rule 23 (b)(3).  Also arguing that trial by affidavit and claims administrator mini-trials are not legitimate substitutes for proper ascertainability.


[hide]

Court denied cert

The Court denied the petition for cert on October 10, 2017.

View

Bristol-Myers Squibb v. The Super. Ct. of S.F. Cnty.

|SCOTUS|2017

(U.S., filed March 8, 2017): Arguing that it is improper

[…]

(U.S., filed March 8, 2017): Arguing that it is improper for California courts to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a company that has no connection whatsoever to California, except for the fact that its product is sold in the state.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On, June 19, 2017, the US Supreme Court agreed with ATRA’s amicus brief position and ruled that state courts do not have jurisdiction to hear their claims.

View

BNSF Railway v. Tyrrell

|SCOTUS|2017

Arguing that the Montana Supreme Court improperly applied the Daimler

[…]

Arguing that the Montana Supreme Court improperly applied the Daimler personal jurisdiction requirements, which state that a “foreign corporation” is subject to jurisdiction only in states in which it is incorporated and where it has its principal place of business.  Also argued that the Montana Supreme Court has repeatedly defied the decisions of the US Supreme Court and reintroduced the unfairness and uncertainty the US Supreme Court sought to eliminate.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

Status: On May 30, 2017, the US Supreme Court ruled in favora of ATRA’s amicus brief.  The Court held that a state court may exercise jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations when their “affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum state.” BNSF was not incorporated or headquartered in Montana and its activity there was not “so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that State.”

View

Dziadek v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company

|8th Circuit|2017

(8th Cir., Filed Feb. 21, 2017): Arguing that above-market prejudgment

[…]

(8th Cir., Filed Feb. 21, 2017): Arguing that above-market prejudgment interest should not be included in the denominator when calculating the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages.  Above-market prejudgment interest overstates the actual harm suffered by the plaintiff and already serves a punitive function.  If the Court concludes that some amount of prejudgment interest should be included in the denominator of the ratio, it should use a market rate for determining the amount and add the balance of the prejudgment interest- the effect of which is entirely punitive-to the numerator.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On August 15, 2017, the court ruled against ATRA’s position and affirmed the award of punitive damages. 

View

Hyundai Motor America v. Hutton

Mississippi|2017

(Filed February 6, 2017): Arguing that the court’s lax approach

[…]

(Filed February 6, 2017): Arguing that the court’s lax approach to excusing jurors violated Mississippi laws. Courts must follow the statutory procedures and standards in order to ensure proper functioning of the judicial system and fairness to litigants.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position
View

International Paper Company, et. al. v. Kleen Products LLC, et. al.

|SCOTUS|2017

(U.S., filed February 3, 2017): Arguing that it was improper

[…]

(U.S., filed February 3, 2017): Arguing that it was improper of the court to use a presumption of classwide antitrust injury based on alleged price increases that occurred in an unrepresentative price index.  Also arguing that the Court should grant review to clarify when presumptions may be applied in favor of class certification.


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

In Re Motor Liquidation

|SCOTUS|2017

(U.S., filed January 17, 2017): Arguing that in a 363

[…]

(U.S., filed January 17, 2017): Arguing that in a 363 sale, the Due Process Clause does not require a seller to notify creditors of the basis for any potential claims against the debtor.  By imposing a novel and unjustifiable notice requirement, the Court is hindering debtors’ ability to sell their assets quickly.  And by threatening buyers with the loss of their “free and clear” protection, the decision deprives estates of a critical tool for maximizing creditor recovery.  The decision will perpetuate the kind of abusive, lawyer-driven litigation that will offer little in the way of relief for the class members and will provide an enormous windfall for the plaintiffs’ lawyers who bring them.


[hide]

Court denied cert

Petition for cert was denied on April 24, 2017.

View

TH v. Novartis

California|2016

(Cal., to be filed December 7, 2016): Arguing against the

[…]

(Cal., to be filed December 7, 2016): Arguing against the adoption of innovator liability.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On December 21, 2017, the California Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision and adopted the theory of innovator liability. 

View

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. The Super. Ct. of S.F. Cnty.

|SCOTUS|2016

(U.S., filed November 10, 2016): Arguing that it is improper

[…]

(U.S., filed November 10, 2016): Arguing that it is improper for California courts to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a company that has no connection whatsoever to California, except for the fact that its product is sold in the state.


[hide]

Court granted cert
View

TV Azteca v. Ruiz

|SCOTUS|2016

(U.S., filed November 11, 2016): Arguing for the proper application

[…]

(U.S., filed November 11, 2016): Arguing for the proper application of personal jurisdiction.


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

In re Flonase

|3rd Circuit|2016

(3rd Circ., Filed November 2, 2016): Arguing that a State

[…]

(3rd Circ., Filed November 2, 2016): Arguing that a State cannot invoke sovereign immunity to avoid being bound by a class settlement and, instead, bring a new lawsuit making identical claims when the State was expressly included in the class, received notice of the action and settlement, and did not opt out.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On December 22, 2017, the Court ruled against ATRA’s position and affirmed the district court’s decision finding the Eleventh Amendment barred the suit. It found that GSK’s action in federal court to enjoin Louisiana’s state court lawsuit through enforcing the settlement agreement qualified as a lawsuit against the state (even through the state was acting as a plaintiff in that suit). The Third Circuit also found that a Class Action Fairness Act notice and the state’s failure to act on it was insufficient to waive Louisiana’s sovereign immunity because waiver requires a clear and unequivocal declaration that the state consents to suit.

View

Alec L. v. McCarthy

|8th Circuit|2014

(D.C. Cir., filed Jan. 2014): Arguing that the public trust

[…]

(D.C. Cir., filed Jan. 2014): Arguing that the public trust doctrine should not provide a means of regulating climate change through the courts.


[hide]

Court denied cert

Court ruled in favor of ATRA’s position in June of 2014.  Plaintiff’s Petition for Cert denied in December of 2014.

View

Walston v. Boeing Co.

Washington|2014

(Wash., filed Jan. 2014): Arguing caution against expansive interpretation of

[…]

(Wash., filed Jan. 2014): Arguing caution against expansive interpretation of deliberate intent exception to workers’ comp law.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

Court ruled in favor of Boeing in September of 2014.

View

GenOn Power Midwest v. Bell

|SCOTUS|2014

(U.S., filed Mar. 2014): Urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant

[…]

(U.S., filed Mar. 2014): Urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari to consider reversing a Third Circuit ruling that allowed tort-based claims under state common law for emissions that EPA allows under site-specific permits pursuant to the Clean Air Act.


[hide]

Court denied cert

Petition for Cert denied in June of 2014.

View

Allstate v. Jacobsen

|SCOTUS|2014

(U.S., filed Mar. 2014): Urging the U.S. Supreme Court to

[…]

(U.S., filed Mar. 2014): Urging the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify that state class actions for monetary relief, however styled, must provide absent class members with notice and opt-out rights, and must guarantee defendants a full and fair opportunity to be heard on all available defenses.


[hide]

Court denied cert

Petition for Cert denied in May of 2014

View

Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc.

Ohio|2014

(Ohio, filed both in support of review and on merits

[…]

(Ohio, filed both in support of review and on merits in Nov. 2013 and Apr. 2014): Arguing that car purchasers whose contract included an invalid arbitration clause but who had no dispute with the dealer cannot each recover $200 in “discretionary” damages through a consumer class action.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

Court ruled in favor of Ganley Chevrolet in August of 2015.

View

Oleszkowicz v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Louisiana|2014

(La., filed both in support of review and on merits

[…]

(La., filed both in support of review and on merits in Feb. and May 2014): Arguing that res judicata does not permit a plaintiff who sought and did not recover punitive damages in a previous suit for fear of cancer to later recover punitive damages stemming from the same conduct when he brings another suit after developing cancer.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

Court accepted review after receiving amicus brief and then agreed with the Exxon/ATRA position, overturning a punitive damages award of over $2.3 million in December 2014

View

Masters Group International v. Comerica Bank

Montana|2014

(Mt., filed June 2014; ATRA’s name did not appear on

[…]

(Mt., filed June 2014; ATRA’s name did not appear on brief): Arguing that the state’s limit on punitive damages is constitutional.


[hide]

Court remanded case back to lower court

On July 1, 2015, Court ruled Michigan law should have been applied to case, not Montana.  Case sent back to Michigan for new trial.      

View

Antero Resources Corp. v. Strudley

Colorado|2014

(Co., filed June 2014): Arguing that Colorado courts should be

[…]

(Co., filed June 2014): Arguing that Colorado courts should be allowed to enter Lone Pine orders requiring plaintiffs in toxic tort and complicated products cases to make a prima facie showing of foundational issues like injury and exposure before proceeding.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On April 20, 2015, The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and held that Colorado’s Rules of Civil Procedure did not allow a trial court to issue a modified case management order (“lone pine” order) that required a plaintiff to present prima facie evidence in support of a claim before plaintiff could exercise its full rights of discovery. 

View

Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co.

California|2014

(Cal., filed June 2014): Arguing that an award of attorney

[…]

(Cal., filed June 2014): Arguing that an award of attorney fees should not be included in the calculation of the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages required as part of a due process analysis.


[hide]

Court granted cert

Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs and held that attorney’s fee awards in bad faith cases can be included in the calculation of the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages, regardless of whether the fees are awarded by the trier of fact as part of its verdict or are determined by the trial court after the verdict has been rendered.  Opinion released on June 9, 2016.

View

Nevada v. Wyeth

Nevada|2014

(Nev., filed August 2014):  Urging the Court to hear Wyeth’s

[…]

(Nev., filed August 2014):  Urging the Court to hear Wyeth’s appeal of the lower court’s decision allowing for outside counsel to represent the state in a consumer protection lawsuit.  Specifically arguing that the attorney general has not properly demonstrated that her office is unable to represent the state, as required by Nevada law, and that the hiring of outside counsel is not in the state’s best interest.


[hide]

Case Settled

Case settled on November 3, 2014.

View

BP Exploration & Production Incorporated, et al. v. Lake Eugenie Land & Development, Incorporated, et al.,

|SCOTUS|2014

No. 14-123 (U.S., filed September 2014):  Urging the United States Supreme

[…]

No. 14-123 (U.S., filed September 2014):  Urging the United States Supreme Court to hear BP’s appeal of critical class action issues stemming from the 2010 Deepwater oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  Specifically arguing that the certification and management of the class violates Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Article III of the Constitution.


[hide]

Court denied cert

Petition for cert denied on December 8, 2014.

View

Dummitt v. Crane Co.

New York|2014

(N.Y., filed September 2014): Arguing that, Defendants are only responsible for harms caused

[…]

(N.Y., filed September 2014): Arguing that, Defendants are only responsible for harms caused by their own products and do not have a duty to warn about products made or sold by third-parties.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

The court held “that the manufacturer of a product has a duty to warn of the danger arising from the known and reasonably foreseeable use of its product in combination with a third-party product which, as a matter of design, mechanics or economic necessity, is necessary to enable the manufacturer’s product to function as intended.”  Opinion released on June 28, 2016.  

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. The Super. Ct. of S.F. Cnty.

California|2014

(Cal., filed September 2014): Arguing that it is improper for

[…]

(Cal., filed September 2014): Arguing that it is improper for California courts to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a company that has no connection whatsoever to California, except for the fact that its product is sold in the state.  Urged the state high court to grant cert and rehear the case.


[hide]

Court granted cert

Petition for cert granted on November 19, 2014.  

View

Mobil Co. v. Johnson

Florida|2014

(Fl. Distr. Ct. of Appeal of 4th Distr., filed October

[…]

(Fl. Distr. Ct. of Appeal of 4th Distr., filed October 2014): Arguing that in any toxic tort case, it is important to assess the dose received by the plaintiff, and then show that the dose received is sufficient to have caused the plaintiff’s condition.  Simply showing exposure and a condition is not enough; there must be a reliable linkage.


[hide]

Case settled

Case settled January 8, 2016.

View

Nissan Motor Co. v. Maddox

Kentucky|2014

(KY, filed in October 2014): Arguing that it is improper

[…]

(KY, filed in October 2014): Arguing that it is improper to award punitive damages to a plaintiff who was injured by a product that met government regulatory standards.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

Court agreed with our brief and vacated punitive damages award in September of 2015.

BP In Re Deepwater Horizon

|5th Circuit|2014

(US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, filed in December 2014):

[…]

(US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, filed in December 2014): Arguing that claims administrators should be subject to the same standards of impartiality- enforced through either disqualification or disclosure rules- that apply to other adjudicators authorized by law to exercise discretion in resolving cases and controversies.


[hide]

Case Settled

Case settled March 6, 2015

View

Rost v. Ford

Pennsylvania|2015

(Penn., filed in January of 2015):  Arguing that a plaintiff

[…]

(Penn., filed in January of 2015):  Arguing that a plaintiff in an asbestos action cannot satisfy the burden of establishing substantial-factor causation by an expert’s ‘cumulative exposure’ theory that the expert concedes is simply an ‘any exposure’ theory by a different name.  Also arguing that the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas’ mandatory practice of consolidating unrelated asbestos cases—even where the defendants suffer severe prejudice as a result—is inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and due process.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

Court ruled against ATRA’s position on November 22, 2016. 

View

In Re Longview Energy Co.

Texas|2015

(Tex. Filed in January of 2015): Arguing that the statutory

[…]

(Tex. Filed in January of 2015): Arguing that the statutory limit on appeal bonds should apply per judgment, not per judgment per party.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

Texas Supreme Court Vacated the Decision.  Held that the award at issue constituted “disgorgement” rather than “damages.”  

View

In Re Urethane

|SCOTUS|2015

(U.S. Supreme Court, filed in April of 2015): Arguing that

[…]

(U.S. Supreme Court, filed in April of 2015): Arguing that the Court must clarify the Rules Enabling Act and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to ensure that they are applied consistently with longstanding Due Process principles.  Arguing that the court erred in its use of “inferences,” or presumptions, of class-wide injury to justify certification of a class in an antitrust suit involving allegations of price-fixing.  It was improper for the court to allow the use of sample evidence and statistical models to establish damages on a class-wide basis, even though the samples themselves demonstrated zero or negative damages for some transactions.


[hide]

Case Settled

Case Settled February 26, 2016.

View

Lompe v. Sunridge

|10th Circuit|2015

(U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, filed in

[…]

(U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, filed in April 2015).  Arguing that it is improper to use a defendant’s wealth evidence in an unconstrained manner to inflate a punitive damages award.  Also arguing that a judge must conduct a diligent post-trial evaluation of the punitive damages award in light of the nature of the conduct, the injuries, and the other factors recognized to place meaningful limits on a jury’s power to punish a civil defendant.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position
View

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bousaphakeo

|SCOTUS|2015

(U.S. Supreme Court, filed in April of 2015): Arguing that

[…]

(U.S. Supreme Court, filed in April of 2015): Arguing that the Court should grant cert in order to clarify the law and only allow class actions when all class members suffered a common injury and damages and they can be determined accurately and fairly.  It was improper of the lower court to allow “common evidence” of classwide liability and damages when it was an extrapolation of a non-representative sample of the class.  Arguing that the Court must reject a “trial by formula” and must consider a defendant’s right to litigate its statutory defenses to individual claims.


[hide]

Court granted cert
View

Scapa Dryer Fabrics v. Knight

Georgia|2015

(Ga., filed in May of 2015).  Arguing that the “any

[…]

(Ga., filed in May of 2015).  Arguing that the “any exposure theory” is not sufficient to be causative of mesothelioma.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

May v. Air & Liquid Systems, Inc.

Maryland|2015

(Md., filed in May of 2015): Arguing that a manufacturer

[…]

(Md., filed in May of 2015): Arguing that a manufacturer does not has a duty to warn with respect to asbestos-containing products manufactured, supplied, or placed in the stream of commerce by third-parties.


[hide]

Court remanded case back to lower court

On December 18, 2015, the Court held that a company is not generally liable for asbestos-containing parts it does not manufacture or place into the stream of commerce, but recognize that narrow circumstances exist where a manufacturer can be liable for products it has not touched.  A manufacturer will have a duty to warn under negligence and strict liability when (1) its product contains asbestos components, and no safer material is available; (2) asbestos is a critical part of the pump sold by the manufacturer; (3) periodic maintenance involving handling asbestos gaskets and packing is required; and (4) the manufacturer knows or should know the risks from exposure to asbestos.  The case was remanded back to the lower court.

View

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. The Super. Ct. of S.F. Cnty.

California|2015

(Cal., filed June 2015): Arguing that it is improper for

[…]

(Cal., filed June 2015): Arguing that it is improper for California courts to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a company that has no connection whatsoever to California, except for the fact that its product is sold in the state.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position
View

Rains v. Stayton

Oregon|2015

(Ore., filed in July of 2015): Arguing that the state’s

[…]

(Ore., filed in July of 2015): Arguing that the state’s statutory limit on noneconomic damages is constitutional and does not infringe on a plaintiff’s right to a jury trial.

Read our full amicus brief.


[hide]

Court remanded case back to lower court
View

Spokeo v. Robins

|SCOTUS|2015

(U.S. Supreme Court, filed in July of 2015): Arguing that

[…]

(U.S. Supreme Court, filed in July of 2015): Arguing that a bare violation of a federal statute does not confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position
View

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bousaphakeo

|SCOTUS|2015

(U.S. Supreme Court, filed in August of 2015): Arguing that

[…]

(U.S. Supreme Court, filed in August of 2015): Arguing that the Court needs to clarify the law and only allow class actions when all class members suffered a common injury and damages and they can be determined accurately and fairly.  It was improper of the lower court to allow “common evidence” of classwide liability and damages when it was an extrapolation of a non-representative sample of the class.  Arguing that the Court must reject a “trial by formula” and must consider a defendant’s right to litigate its statutory defenses to individual claims.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position
View

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Rigsby

|SCOTUS|2015

(U.S. Supreme Court, filed in November of 2015):  Arguing that

[…]

(U.S. Supreme Court, filed in November of 2015):  Arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should grant cert in the case to decide whether or not a seal violation in False Claims Act cases should require mandatory dismissal of a claim.  Also urges the Court to clarify the scienter requirements under the federal FCA.


[hide]

Court granted cert
View

Condon v. Advance Thermal Hydronics et. al.

New Jersey|2015

(Superior Court of New Jersey, filed in November of 2015):

[…]

(Superior Court of New Jersey, filed in November of 2015): Arguing that defendants at trial should be able to allocate fault to settled defendants in the case, as opposed to the plaintiff being able to receive nearly a full recovery from settled defendants and then receive an additional, complete recovery from any judgment defendant.


[hide]

Case Not Yet Decided
View

Massachusetts v. Universal Health

Massachusetts|2016

(U.S. Supreme Court, filed January 26, 2016): Arguing that false

[…]

(U.S. Supreme Court, filed January 26, 2016): Arguing that false certification claims should not be subject to the False Claims Act and that the Supreme Court should help reign in the rampant FCA abuse occurring in the courts.


[hide]

Court remanded case back to lower court

The Court remanded case back to lower court but held that “[T]he implied false certification theory can be a basis for liability, at least where two conditions are satisfied: first, the claim does not merely request payment, but also makes specific representations about the goods or services provided; and second, the defendant’s failure to disclose noncompliance with material statutory, regulatory or contractual requirements makes those representations half truths”.  The Court went on to say that, “the False Claims Act liability for failing to disclose violations of legal requirements does not turn upon whether those requirements were expressly designated as conditions of payment. . . [N]ot every violation of such a requirement gives rise to liability.”  The materiality requirement was intended to be “rigorous” and “demanding.”  Case was decided on June 15, 2016.

View

Patchett v. Lee

Indiana|2016

(Ind., filed February 19, 2016): Arguing that admissibility of “phantom

[…]

(Ind., filed February 19, 2016): Arguing that admissibility of “phantom damages” as evidence impedes the search for the truth and unnecessarily makes the trial process much less efficient.  Also argues that even if the Court agrees the evidence of payment from a government insurer should be excluded, it should allow for an offset of the phantom damages against the plaintiff’s compensatory damages aware, or otherwise allow the defendant to introduce evidence of the provider’s willingness to discount charges for other patients.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position
View

Exxon Mobil v. New Hampshire

New Hampshire|2016

(U.S. Supreme Court, filed February 22, 2016): Arguing that Exxon’s

[…]

(U.S. Supreme Court, filed February 22, 2016): Arguing that Exxon’s liability for selling MTBE-Oxygenated gasoline should be preempted by the federal Clean Air Act.


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

Konstantin v. 630 Third Avenue Associates, et. al.

New York|2016

(New York, filed in February of 2016): Arguing that consolidation

[…]

(New York, filed in February of 2016): Arguing that consolidation of asbestos-based personal injury actions for trial violates CPLR 602(a) where the actions differ with respect to the worksites, occupations, products, durations of exposure, diseases, plaintiff health statuses, defendants, and legal theories at issue, and where the defendants are prejudiced by jury confusion and the mutual bolstering of each claim’s likelihood of success.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position
View

Certainteed Corporation v. Fletcher

Georgia|2016

(Ga., filed in March of 2016): Arguing that manufacturers should

[…]

(Ga., filed in March of 2016): Arguing that manufacturers should not be held liable for negligence in asbestos cases involving take-home exposure.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position
View

Microsoft v. Baker

|SCOTUS|2016

(U.S., filed March 18, 2016): Arguing that a federal court

[…]

(U.S., filed March 18, 2016): Arguing that a federal court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice.  Plaintiffs should not be able to create appellate jurisdiction through the voluntary dismissal tactic.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On June 12, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of ATRA’s position and held that  the lower court lacked jurisdiction under §1291 because the voluntary dismissal with prejudice did not result in a “final decision.”

View

In Re Lipitor

|3rd Circuit|2016

(3rd Cir., filed March 28, 2016): Arguing that antitrust cases

[…]

(3rd Cir., filed March 28, 2016): Arguing that antitrust cases require pleadings to include sufficient facts to establish a plausible foundation for the allegations.  Requiring the complaint include sufficient plausible facts will help avoid highly speculative antitrust lawsuits and unnecessary litigation costs.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On August, 21, 2017, the Third Circuit found that the district court had adopted a heightened pleading standard that exceeded Iqbal/Twombly. “Twombly and Iqbal require only plausibility, a standard not akin to a probability requirement. While Twombly and Iqbal require that factual allegations be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, those cases make it clear that a claimant does not have to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim.” (internal citations, alterations, and quotations omitted) “The alleged reverse payment here was ‘large’ enough to permit a plausible inference that Pfizer possessed the power to bring about an unjustified anticompetitive harm through its patents and had serious doubts about the ability of those patents to lawfully prevent competition.”

View

In Re Trinity Industries Inc.

|5th Circuit|2016

Arguing that if allowed to stand, the decision below would produce deep regulatory uncertainty for manufacturers and other businesses that contract directly or indirectly with the Federal Government.

[…]

(5th Cir., filed March 28, 2016): Arguing that if allowed to stand, the decision below would produce deep regulatory uncertainty for manufacturers and other businesses that contract directly or indirectly with the Federal Government.  Under the district court’s ruling, a manufacturer could receive authoritative assurances from the Federal Government that it is complying with federal regulations—and yet, when the manufacturer later certifies that it is in compliance, it can be found in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA) and subjected to hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.  That distorts the FCA—which targets “false” claims to obtain money from the Government.  A statement that a product is in compliance cannot be “false” when the Government itself has authoritatively decided that the product is in compliance.

View Amicus Brief: Final Trinity Brief- 5th COA


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On September 29, 2017, the Court ruled in favor of ATRA’s position and overturned the verdict against Trinity. 

View

Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co.

Tennessee|2016

(Tenn., filed April 15, 2016): Arguing that Tennessee’s statutory limit

[…]

(Tenn., filed April 15, 2016): Arguing that Tennessee’s statutory limit on punitive damages is constitutional.  The statutory limit does not infringe on a plaintiff’s right to trial by jury nor does it violate the separation of powers provisions in the Tennessee Constitution.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position
View

Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

|11th Circuit|2016

(11th Cir., filed April 22, 2016).  Arguing that reliance on

[…]

(11th Cir., filed April 22, 2016).  Arguing that reliance on general, non-specific verdicts to foreclose litigation of highly specific issues that may never have been resolved in a plaintiff’s favor constitutes a fundamental violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position
View

Davis v. Honeywell Inc.

California|2016

(Cal., filed April 29, 2016): Arguing that the court should

[…]

(Cal., filed April 29, 2016): Arguing that the court should clarify what constitutes a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of developing an asbestos-related disease.  Also urges the court to not adopt the “any exposure” theory.


[hide]

Court denied cert
View

Beason v. I.E. Miller

Oklahoma|2016

(Ok., filed June 6, 2016): Arguing that the statutory limits

[…]

(Ok., filed June 6, 2016): Arguing that the statutory limits on noneconomic damages are constitutional and does not violate a person’s right to a jury trial.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On April 23, 2019, the Court struck down the limits on noneconomic damages finding it was an unconstitutional “special law.”

View

In Re Dupont de Nemours and Company C-8 Litigation

|6th Circuit|2016

(6th Cir., filed June 20, 2016): Arguing that the court improperly

[…]

(6th Cir., filed June 20, 2016): Arguing that the court improperly blended specific and general causation and that there is a vital distinction between a determination that a certain chemical can cause a disease in a general population, as opposed to a quantitative showing based upon an individual’s specific exposure and dose that the chemical did cause the disease in a given plaintiff.


[hide]

Case Not Yet Decided
View

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby No. 15-513

|SCOTUS|2016

(U.S., filed August 8, 2016): Arguing that the blatant violation

[…]

(U.S., filed August 8, 2016): Arguing that the blatant violation of the “seal” requirement by relator in a false claims case should result in a dismissal of the suit.  ATRA filed a cert petition in this matter in 2015.  Oral argument to be held in the coming term of the Supreme Court of the United States.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

The Court ruled against ATRA’s position on December 6, 2016.  Justice Kennedy held that automatic dismissal is not required for a seal violation.  He also stated that whether dismissal is appropriate is an issue left in the sound discretion of the district court, and that the Court could explore the factors relevant to the exercise of that discretion in later cases.

 

View

Robinson v. Pfizer

|8th Circuit|2016

Arguing that expansive venue laws has led to venue shopping and abuses in Missouri.

[…]

(8th. Cir., filed September 12, 2016): Arguing that expansive venue laws has led to venue shopping and abuses in Missouri.  The Court must reign in the personal jurisdiction laws in Missouri in order to better protect defendants from lawsuits being filed in a state where there is no real connection to the defendant or plaintiff.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On May 1, 2017, the Court denied the appeal as moot. 

Cerveny v. Aventis

|10th Circuit|2016

(10th Cir., filed September 19, 2016): Arguing that courts must

[…]

(10th Cir., filed September 19, 2016): Arguing that courts must ask whether federal law authorized the defendant to do what the plaintiff claims state law required when assessing conflict preemption.  Also argues that federal law authorizes a drug manufacturer to change its FDA-approved label only in limited circumstances.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

On May 2, 2017, the Court ruled in favor of ATRA’s position and affirmed the lower court’s decision granting summary judgment. The Court held that the FDA’s rejection of a citizen petition containing arguments virtually identical to the plaintiffs’ constitutes “clear evidence” that the FDA would not have approved plaintiffs’ proposed warning. 

View

Hyundai Motor America v. Applewhite

Mississippi|2016

Arguing that under MS statute, evidence of a plaintiff’s nonuse of his seatbelt is admissible to refute a plaintiff’s causation theory and to understand the nature of a crash.

[…]

(Miss., filed September 19, 2016): Arguing that under MS statute, evidence of a plaintiff’s nonuse of his seatbelt is admissible to refute a plaintiff’s causation theory and to understand the nature of a crash.  Also, arguing that it is improper for a circuit clerk to grant excuses for hardship outside the presence of a presiding judge or to grant medical excuses without proper document from a physician.  Jurors may not be categorically excluded from serving on a jury.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position
View

Walker v. Ford

Colorado|2016

Arguing that the“risk-benefit” test for strict product liability incorporates the “consumer expectation” test, such that the trial court reversibly erred by separately instructing the jury on the “consumer expectation” test.

[…]

(Col., filed September 27, 2016): Arguing that the“risk-benefit” test for strict product liability incorporates the “consumer expectation” test, such that the trial court reversibly erred by separately instructing the jury on the “consumer expectation” test.  Colorado’s strict product liability law strikes a proper balance of interest by applying a risk-benefit analysis as the sole test for determining whether a product is “unreasonably dangerous.”


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

The Court ruled in favor of ATRA’s position on November 13, 2017. 

View

Cottrell v. Alcon Laboratories

|3rd Circuit|2016

(3rd Cir., filed September 28, 2016): Arguing that the plaintiffs’

[…]

(3rd Cir., filed September 28, 2016): Arguing that the plaintiffs’ speculative claim that they might have paid less for a medication if defendants had packaged it more efficiently does not describe a cognizable injury in fact, and therefore, they lack standing.  Accepting plaintiffs’ theory would invite abusive class-action litigation.


[hide]

Court ruled against ATRA's position

On October 18, 2017, the Court ruled against ATRA’s position and reversed the dismissal of the class action.  

View

Eike v. Allergan

|7th Circuit|2016

Arguing that the plaintiffs’ speculative claim that they might have paid less for a medication if defendants had packaged it more efficiently does not describe a cognizable injury in fact, and therefore, they lack standing.

[…]

(7th Cir., filed October 18, 2016): Arguing that the plaintiffs’ speculative claim that they might have paid less for a medication if defendants had packaged it more efficiently does not describe a cognizable injury in fact, and therefore, they lack standing.  Accepting plaintiffs’ theory would invite abusive class-action litigation. If plaintiffs’ novel standing theory were accepted, it would encourage lawyers to bring class-action suits over any business practice that could be portrayed as inefficient, based on conjecture that greater efficiency might have translated into savings for customers.


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

The Court ruled in favor of ATRA’s position on March 6, 2017.  The Court reversed the grant of class certification and ordered the case to be dismissed for lack of standing.  

View

BNSF v. Tyrell

|SCOTUS|2016

(US., filed October 28, 2016): Arguing that the Montana Supreme Court improperly applied the Daimler personal jurisdiction requirements, which state that a “foreign corporation” is subject to jurisdiction only in states in which it is incorporated and where it has its principal place of business.

[…]

(US., filed October 28, 2016): Arguing that the Montana Supreme Court improperly applied the Daimler personal jurisdiction requirements, which state that a “foreign corporation” is subject to jurisdiction only in states in which it is incorporated and where it has its principal place of business.  Also argued that the Montana Supreme Court has repeatedly defied the decisions of the US Supreme Court and reintroduced the unfairness and uncertainty the US Supreme Court sought to eliminate.


[hide]

Court granted cert
View

In re Zoloft Litigation

|3rd Circuit|2016

Arguing that an expert cannot premise a causation analysis on a single statistically-significant association when the larger body of epidemiological studies fails to find any such association.

[…]

(3rd Cir., filed October 18, 2016): Arguing that an expert cannot premise a causation analysis on a single statistically-significant association when the larger body of epidemiological studies fails to find any such association.  Also, arguing that an expert cannot massage the data with after-the-fact analyses to create associations that were not found by the statistical methodologies originally selected by the scientists who performed the study.  Trial court judges must act as gatekeepers over the reliability of expert testimony, carefully evaluating whether such testimony is based on sound scientific principles or is simply bought-and-paid for “junk science.”


[hide]

Court ruled in favor of ATRA's position

Status: On June 2, 2017, the Third Circuit ruled in favor of ATRA’s position.  The Court held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the expert witness’s testimony. 

View