Congratulations to PLAC member Patrick Seyferth and his team at BSP Law for securing a defense verdict for Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC following a week-long jury trial in Cuyahoga County, OH. To learn more, click here.
This week PLAC submitted an amicus brief in the Florida Supreme Court addressing the issue as to whether Florida should join the federal courts and majority of states in their interpretation of the summary judgment rule. Under Florida’s current rule, summary judgment is nearly impossible to obtain because the movant must prove a negative – that there is no evidence to support a verdict. This issue has gained a lot of attention resulting multiple amicus briefs. Law 360 reported on PLAC’S briefing today.
To view PLAC’s brief, click here.
Congratulations to sustaining member Paul Cereghini of Bowman and Brooke for his recent win in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of PLAC member American Honda Motor Company, Inc. After a four-week trial and nearly a week of deliberations, a civil jury in downtown Los Angeles returned a complete defense verdict in a $160 million all-terrain vehicle product liability case. To read the full press release, click here.
PLAC (formerly the Product Liability Advisory Council) is a specialty bar association focusing on complex litigation and regulatory issues in the area of product development and product liability. Our not-for-profit association of product manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and select regulatory, litigation and appellate professionals who work to shape the common law of product liability and complex regulation, provide guidance on changing regulations, and strategically help corporations manage risk throughout the entire product lifecycle. PLAC is a unique resource for companies who must defend their products’ integrity and their companies’ reputation.
PLAC submitted an amicus brief in support of defendant's petition for certiorari in an aviation product liability preemption case.
For over two decades, the lower courts have wrestled with the question whether the Federal Aviation Act and regulations preempt the field as to aviation safety standards. In this case, the Third Circuit rejected field preemption but suggested that the District Court consider conflict preemption instead. The trial court granted summary judgment on conflict preemption, but a different panel reversed on appeal (with one judge dissenting). In so doing, the Third Circuit disregarded the Supreme Court's recent holdings in PLIVA v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011) and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013). Both cases held that [t]he question for 'impossibility' is whether the private party could independently do under federal law what state law requires of it." In the current matter, the applicable regulations require that any alteration to the design of the airplane, the engine, or the carburetor required prior approval of the FAA. Nevertheless, the Third Circuit held that compliance with state and federal law was not impossible because defendant "has made numerous changes to the type certificate . . ., which the FAA approved in short order").
PLAC's brief in support of the defendant supported cert on both field and conflict preemption. The National Association of Manufacturers joined PLAC's brief.
PLAC's Spring Conference will be held at the Omni Montelucia from March 25-27 in Scottsdale, AZ
OEM/Supplier Legal Summit: PLAC is hosting its second OEM/Supplier Legal Summit on June 3, 2020 at the Detroit Athletic Club. Click here to register.
January 23, 2020: Vapor Madness
February 10, 2020: Consumer Purchase Behavior: A Human Factors Perspective
Connect with us on LinkedIn