Alan Lazarus

Alan J. Lazarus is a Products Liability Partner residing in our San Francisco, California, office. Alan is an experienced trial and appellate attorney with a focus on products liability, consumer protection, toxic substances and environmental litigation. Alan writes and lectures frequently on products liability and appellate practice topics.

View the full bio for Alan Lazarus at the Faegre Drinker website.

Articles by Alan Lazarus:


Blurry Vision in Two Courts Leads to Denial of Preemption in Intraocular Lens Implant Case

Share

A recent Second Circuit preemption decision illustrates the importance of a clear-eyed approach to medical device preemption issues.

In Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 6 F.4th 229 (2d Cir. 2021), the district court dismissed as preempted a complaint concerning vision loss from defective intraocular lenses implanted during cataract surgery. Plaintiff developed “Z syndrome,” permanently impairing her vision, and sued the manufacturer under the Connecticut Product Liability Act (CPLA) for failing to warn.  She alleged the defendant had failed to report prior Z Syndrome cases to the FDA, as required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

Continue reading “Blurry Vision in Two Courts Leads to Denial of Preemption in Intraocular Lens Implant Case”

Sue Generous and the Laws of Legal Physics: Preventing Asbestos Mission Creep in California Courts

Share

It is virtually a law of legal physics in California that liability tends to expand until a critical mass of appellate courts rule that it has reached its limit, or the Supreme Court puts up a stop sign (a vanishingly rare occurrence).

This judicial tendency reaches its zenith in asbestos litigation.  Asbestos cases feature a combination of factors that pressure-test the boundaries of traditional tort law.  Asbestos fibers, in most cases, are relatively fungible, and the exposures are anecdotal and undifferentiated.  The injuries have extremely long latency periods, leaving exposure details fuzzy, ancient lore.  The biological mechanisms are largely mysterious.  In many cases, the plaintiff can prove an asbestos injury but cannot reliably prove causation under traditional tort standards.

Continue reading “Sue Generous and the Laws of Legal Physics: Preventing Asbestos Mission Creep in California Courts”

Ninth Circuit Adheres to Precedent and Finds That Subverting Express Warranties Simply Does Not Compute

Share

On May 19, 2022, in an unpublished decision, a Ninth Circuit panel reaffirmed that under California law manufacturers do not have a duty to disclose defects in their products that manifest after the expiration of the product’s warranty unless the defect poses an unreasonable safety risk.  Taleshpour v. Apple, Inc., 2022 WL 1577802 (9th Cir. May 19, 2022).  The court affirmed dismissal of a proposed class action against Apple Inc., holding that California consumer protection laws were not violated as a matter of law because the alleged defect in MacBook Pro laptop computers arose after the expiration of the warranty and the complaint did not allege any safety issue.  The court followed existing Circuit precedent, even though there is some conflicting authority in the California courts of appeal.

Plaintiffs alleged that in certain MacBook Pro models, the backlight ribbon cables used to connect the display screen to the display control tear because the cables do not provide enough slack when the laptops open and close.  Apple agreed to replace the display of all 13-inch MacBook Pros that suffer from the alleged defect, but not the 15-inch model or any model released after 2016.  Plaintiffs alleged on behalf of the class that the excluded models suffered from the same backlight defect as the pre-2016 13-inch version.  Plaintiffs conceded the backlight ribbon issues arose after the expiration of Apple’s one-year warranty.

Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Adheres to Precedent and Finds That Subverting Express Warranties Simply Does Not Compute”

Exclusion of Damages Expert at Class Certification Stage Results in Partial Denial of Certification Motion

Share

Just a decade ago, it was still an open question whether parties could challenge the admissibility of expert testimony in class certification proceedings.  The United States Supreme Court recognized the issue in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), and suggested that experts should be scrutinized as usual, noting that “The District Court concluded that Daubert did not apply to expert testimony at the certification stage of class-action proceedings.  We doubt that this is so . . .”  Since then, multiple circuits have taken that hint and held that a court must conduct a full Rule 702 analysis before deciding whether to certify a class.  The Fifth Circuit, in Prantil v. Arkema Incorporated, 986 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2021), became the fourth federal court of appeal to adopt this rule expressly.  As the district court’s recent decision on remand in Prantil demonstrates, a full Rule 702 analysis can make the difference between certifying or rejecting a class.

Continue reading “Exclusion of Damages Expert at Class Certification Stage Results in Partial Denial of Certification Motion”

Another Brick in the Wall: The District Court Finds Preemption in Fosamax Case After Remand From the Supreme Court

Share

We have written before about the Supreme Court’s impossibility preemption decision, Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668 (2019) (Albrecht) (here, here, here, and here), highlighting some open questions and uncertainties that might come into play on remand. Albrecht held that impossibility preemption is a question of law for the court, not for the jury, “elaborated” on the “clear evidence” standard arising from Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (Wyeth), and remanded to the Third Circuit for determination of the preemption issue. That court in turn remanded to the District of New Jersey and further directed the district court “to determine the effect of the FDA’s Complete Response Letter and other communications with Merck on the issue of whether the agency actions are sufficient” to find preemption.

We predicted that the decision on remand would be “interesting” and opined that the case for preemption was “strong.” We now have that decision, In re Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Prod. Liab. Litig., 2022 WL 855853 (D. N.J. Mar. 23, 2022) (Fosamax), and we were right on both counts.

Continue reading “Another Brick in the Wall: The District Court Finds Preemption in Fosamax Case After Remand From the Supreme Court”

The California Supreme Court Shrugs Off a Settlement to Provide Important Guidance on Admissibility of Former Deposition Testimony by Company Witnesses

Share

We reported back in December [California Supreme Court Set to Decide How Defense Counsel Approach Defending Company Witness Depositions] on a case then pending before the California Supreme Court, Berroteran v. Superior Court. The case involves the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule, Evidence Code section 1291(a)(2), as applied to the deposition testimony of company witnesses taken in prior litigation. [Disclaimer: I wrote an amicus brief in support of the petition for review and another on the merits.]

Oral argument did not go well for the plaintiff. Consequently, it was not surprising that within a few days the parties notified the Court that they had reached a settlement. The Supreme Court could have dismissed the appeal at that point and left the issue unresolved. But because its core mission is “to secure uniformity of decision” and to settle important questions of law, Cal. Rule of Court 8.500(b), the Court went ahead and decided the appeal. 2022 WL 664719 (Cal. Mar. 7, 2022). And, as Larry David might say, the decision is pretty, pretty good.

Continue reading “The California Supreme Court Shrugs Off a Settlement to Provide Important Guidance on Admissibility of Former Deposition Testimony by Company Witnesses”