tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36762711.post5200006975487668557..comments2023-11-03T06:14:58.449-04:00Comments on Drug and Device Law: New News On IqbalRachel B. Weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251124525069607080noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36762711.post-45185730926385116042009-08-13T08:28:39.476-04:002009-08-13T08:28:39.476-04:00We really stick to product liability here. Like a...We really stick to product liability here. Like anything (see Daubert), Twombly/Iqbal can be overused. All we can say is that, here in our sandbox, we sense a significant change.<br /><br />We remember, shortly after Daubert came down, how similar arguments were made that Daubert actually "liberalized" standards for expert testimony.<br /><br />We do know that judges are now throwing out the kind pleading garbage that really hacks us off - boilerplate allegations of FDCA violations, design and manufacturing defects, and express warranty claims.Beck/Herrmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17150638020283243716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36762711.post-22292228244422083602009-08-11T19:11:39.561-04:002009-08-11T19:11:39.561-04:00You can also check what Posner and Easterbrook wro...You can also check what Posner and Easterbrook wrote about it (in actual opinions), as I blogged about here:<br /><br />http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2009/08/articles/the-law/for-lawyers/posner-and-easterbrook-put-the-brakes-on-ashcroft-v-iqbal/<br /><br />In short, they're not impressed by Iqbal. Easterbrook thinks the plaintiff need only plead an <i>inference</i> that is "plausible" even in cases alleging fraud, while Posner wonders if Twombly or Iqbal apply at all to most cases.Max Kennerlyhttp://www.litigationandtrial.comnoreply@blogger.com