Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 OCTOBER 2017

MDL Direct Filing & Personal Jurisdiction

Reed Smith
Explore more from Reed Smith

Bexis gave a talk the other day at the Washington Legal Foundation on personal jurisdiction after last term's United States Supreme Court decisions in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, ...

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
James Beck
James Beck
Author LinkedIn connections

Bexis gave a talk the other day at the Washington Legal Foundation on personal jurisdiction after last term's United States Supreme Court decisions in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) ("BMS"), and BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) ("BNSF"). One of the highlighted areas of emerging jurisdictional issues was MDL practice – specifically the MDL practice of allowing plaintiffs anywhere in the country to "direct file" actions into the MDL after it has been established – thereby bypassing the provisions of the MDL statute, 28 U.S.C. §1407(a) that "transfers shall be made by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation."

We thought we'd examine that a bit today.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Tenth Circuit Stays Nationwide Eligibility Injunction For Class Of 2022 In Wisne v. NCAA

On August 21, 2026, the Tenth Circuit granted the NCAA’s stay request in Wisne v. NCAA, temporarily restoring the NCAA’s age-based eligibility rules pending resolution of the appeal. Three weeks earlier, Judge Sweeney of the District of Colorado had issued a nationwide injunction that permitted athletes in the Class of 2022 to pursue a fifth year of eligibility.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
Article

Show Your Work: California Federal Court Denies Preliminary Approval Of Data Breach Class Action Settlement

A federal court in California denied preliminary approval of a $2.3 million data breach settlement affecting over 220,000 individuals, finding seven critical deficiencies in the proposed agreement. The decision highlights the rigorous scrutiny courts apply to class action settlements, particularly regarding claims-made distribution processes, inadequate documentation of settlement value, and unexplained disparate treatment among class members.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Article

California Federal Court Denies TikTok’s Motion To Dismiss Children’s Privacy Claims Based On Prior Class Action Settlements

A federal court rejected TikTok's attempt to use two prior nationwide class action settlements—totaling over $93 million—to dismiss new privacy claims brought by minors alleging violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. The ruling hinged on whether the current plaintiffs were demonstrably members of the earlier settlement classes based solely on the pleadings, raising critical questions about the scope and enforceability of broad settlement releases in successive privacy litiga
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Article

“LEGAL ANALYSIS SO POOR THAT IT HARDLY DESERVES THE LABEL”: Fifth Circuit COA Destroys Federal Judge For Using AI And I Cannot Believe Lawyers Are Still Using This Junk

A Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling harshly criticizes a federal district judge for relying on AI-generated content in legal orders, revealing fabricated facts and poor legal analysis. The decision raises critical questions about the use of generative AI in legal practice and whether lawyers who adopt such technology are compromising their ethical obligations of competence, confidentiality, and integrity.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Troutman Amin LLP
Troutman Amin LLP
Video

MR. NUMBER 1 WINS AGAIN!: Concora Credit To Pay $9.375MM To Settle TCPA Wrong Number Class Action As Another Company Bows To Greenwald (Video)

Concora Credit has agreed to pay $9.375 million to settle a TCPA class action lawsuit over wrong number robocalls, with prominent TCPA attorney Mike Greenwald securing another major victory. The settlement includes over $5 million for approximately 147,000 class members, $3 million in attorney fees, and a commitment to spend at least $1 million on TCPA compliance over three years.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Troutman Amin LLP
Troutman Amin LLP
Article

Florida Federal Court Holds That The TCPA’s Do-Not-Call Provisions Do Not Apply To Cell Phone Users

A federal judge in Florida has ruled that cell phone users cannot sue under the TCPA's do-not-call provisions, determining that the FCC exceeded its authority when it extended protections to wireless subscribers in 2003. The decision challenges decades of regulatory interpretation and could fundamentally reshape telecommunications privacy litigation if adopted by other courts.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Article

FTC Issues Rigorous Requirements On Using AI-Assisted Review Or Technology-Assisted Review To Respond To Investigational Subpoenas

The Federal Trade Commission has introduced stringent new requirements for parties using technology-assisted review or artificial intelligence in document production during investigations, mandating extensive upfront disclosures, prescriptive performance metrics, and validation processes. These requirements represent a significant departure from previous FTC practice and may discourage parties from using AI or TAR due to increased complexity and agency oversight. Parties now face critical decisions about wh
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter
Article

Sterling v. City Of Jackson And The Limits Of Substantive Due Process In Environmental Harm Cases

The Fifth Circuit's en banc decision in Sterling v. City of Jackson tests whether residents exposed to lead-contaminated municipal drinking water can sue under Section 1983 for substantive due process violations. In a 10-5 ruling, the court held that environmental harms caused by government mismanagement belong to tort law and the political process, not constitutional claims, creating a significant circuit split with implications for how environmental compliance failures by public officials are litigated.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter