Products Liability & Mass Torts Class Action Review – 2025

thereafter sued Cook Inc., Cook Medical LLC, and William Cook Europe APS in May 2016, as part of the consolidated proceedings in federal court in In Re Cook Medical, Inc., IVC Filters Marketing, Sales Practices And Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2570. The plaintiff brought products liability and implied warranty claims. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), arguing that her claims were time-barred under Ohio’s two-year statute of limitations. Id. The plaintiff asserted that her doctors told her that she was experiencing a rare side effect of the filter, not that the filter was defective, and that she was unaware of the defect until 2016. The district court granted the defendants’ motion, concluding that the claims were time-barred. Id. at 927. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Seventh Circuit explained that under Ohio law, the statute of limitations for medical device claims “accrues upon the date on which the plaintiff is informed by competent medical authority that the plaintiff has an injury that is related to the exposure, or upon the date on which by the exercise of reasonable diligence the plaintiff should have known that the plaintiff has an injury that is related to the exposure, whichever date occurs first.” Id. The Seventh Circuit ruled that the statute of limitations began to run as soon as the plaintiff was informed by a medical authority that she had an injury related to the IVC filter, or in April 2013. Therefore, the Seventh Circuit concluded that since the plaintiff sued more than two years after becoming aware that the IVC filter injured her, and more than two years after the filter’s removal, the district court correctly ruled that her claims were time- barred. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. 2. Mass Tort Rulings Regarding Common Benefit Funds Common benefit funds are typically set up in MDLs to ensure that lead counsel achieves favorable results for all plaintiffs, as counsel will receive compensation from the fund if the claims are successful. Specified percentages from each plaintiff ’ s settlement or recovery is often reserved and deposited into the fund. As the MDL begins to reach its conclusion, leadership counsel presents its case to the court that outlines the value of the work they performed on the case, and their resulting claim for attorney s’ fees. Attorneys that performed work classified as “common benefit work” are allowed to seek fees from the common benefit fund. Litigation over the fairness and reasonableness of fees from the common benefit fund have received scrutiny over the past years due to the percentage of fees claimed by leadership counsel. Courts in 2024 examined this issue in several rulings. For example, in In Re 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201370 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2024), the Special Master addressed the plaintiffs’ leadership motion regarding the common benefit holdback and the protocols for allocating attorneys’ fees. The motion sought two main outcomes, including: (i) confirmation of a 9% holdback from each settlement award to fund common benefit fees and costs, and (ii) an order establishing protocols and procedures for allocating those fees. The court had previously ordered a 9% holdback from each settlement award, which was intended for common benefit attorneys’ fees and costs. The plaintiffs’ leadership sought confirmation of this arrangement, and the Special Master determined that the 9% holdback should remain in place for both current and future settlement distributions. The motion also requested the establishment of protocols for allocating the common benefit fees. The Special Master noted that while this request was valid, it was largely moot as preliminary work had already been initiated by the court. The Special Master opined that the court would be in the best position to determine the size of the fund needed to fairly compensate attorneys for their contributions and noted that the 9% holdback was consistent with the percentages used in other large MDLs and “super-mega fund” cases. Id. at *43-44. Given the size and complexity of this litigation, the Special Master determined that the 9% holdback seemed reasonable, and that the court would review the final allocation considering the work performed and the compensation required. The court issued another decision regarding establishment of a common benefit fund in a consolidated MDL case mentioned earlier in the chapter in In Re Hair Relaxer Marketing Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150916 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2024). In this MDL involving hair relaxer products and their alleged link to cancer and other injuries, the plaintiffs’ leadership committee (PLC) moved for the court

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online