Judicial Panel Spreads Out Spinal Cord Stimulator Suits to Illinois, California

NewsMass TortsFollowJudicial Panel Spreads Out Spinal Cord Stimulator Suits to Illinois, CaliforniaThe U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict litigation, in separate orders has transferred lawsuits against Abbott Laboratories and Nevro to U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins, in the Northern District of Illinois, and U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam, in the Northern District of California.

Email ShareFont SizeSmallMediumLarge Print A federal judicial panel split up lawsuits over medical devices called spinal cord stimulators, sending dozens of cases against Abbott Laboratories and Nevro Corp. to California and Illinois.

Exclusive ContentA Subscription is Required to Access this Content.

Strategic Intelligence – Business of law market insights from experts and analysts across all major legal marketsIntegrated Insights – Compass and Radar context built right into articles.Personalized Experience – Tailored homepage content and curated newsletters.Smart Search & Alerts – Powerful search functionality and real-time updates.Learn more

Questions? Contact us at [email protected] | 1-855-808-4530 (Americas) | 44(0) 800 098 386009 (UK & Europe)

Email ShareFont SizeSmallMediumLarge PrintPage printed from:

First Judicial District Judge Francis Mathew, in Santa Fe, heard arguments on monetary relief following a jury’s Sept. 25 verdict that found Meta’s executives made dozens of misstatements about the Cambridge Analytica scandal, including how it managed user data, to New Mexicans.

In a trial that opened on Tuesday, Greg Dovel, of Dovel & Luner, represents three women, all from Florida, who allege exposure to the herbicide caused them to get non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

A New Mexico jury, in the first trial of its kind, found Meta’s executives made dozens of misstatements about how its platforms handled user data.

A series of cases are testing whether racketeering claims can serve as a counteroffensive against opposing counsel.

Both companies pushed back on plaintiffs’ allegations that the federal End Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, or EFAA, applied to the cases, which they insisted didn’t involve physical contact between the perpetrator, a third party, and the child user.