Monthly Releases

In Gilead Tenofovir Cases, Case No. S283862, 2026 WL 2223748 (Cal. Aug. 3, 2026) the California Supreme Court issued its decision, rejecting the so-called “duty to innovate.” The court held, in a 6-1 decision, that “a drug manufacturer has no duty of care when deciding whether and when to develop and commercialize an allegedly safer alternative drug” to replace an admittedly non-defective drug. The case arose from a Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding comprising more than 30,000 plaintiffs — HIV patients who took Gilead’s tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Plaintiffs did not claim TDF...

In Cisneros v. Nuance Communications, Inc., Case No. 24-2982 (7th Cir. August 28, 2026), the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) after her financial planning institution contracted with a third party, Nuance, to provide voice-ID technology. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant contractor did not obtain the written consent required under the Act. The district court granted summary judgment on the pleadings to defendant and plaintiff appealed. BIPA Section 25(c) exempts financial institutions that are subject to the federal...

In Johnson v. Ridge Tool Manufacturing Company, Inc., No. 25-2604 (7th Cir. August 7, 2026), the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit after he was severely injured while using a drain-cleaning machine manufactured by the defendant. The district court excluded the plaintiff’s expert witness and granted summary judgment to the defendant and plaintiff appealed. The District Court excluded both expert witnesses under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. In its view, expert Jones’s evaluation was unreliable. His opinion—that there was a safer alternative design that Ridge Tool should have used—was...

In Zurbriggen v. Twin Hill Acquisition, Inc., No. 25-1963 (7th Cir. June 16, 2026), American Airlines contracted with Twin Hill Acquisition, Inc. in 2015 to manufacture new uniforms for its employees. After American released the new apparel, hundreds of employees complained of health problems ranging from itchy eyes to severe allergic reactions. Some claimed they suffered reactions just from being near the Twin Hill uniforms. One month later, American reversed its rollout of the Twin Hill uniforms and, by March 2017, American offered another uniform option from a different company. Yet, some...

In Fischman v. Epic Systems Corporation, No. 3:26-CV-0770-D (USDC ND TX, June 8, 2026), the District Court sitting in Dallas declined to dismiss the pro se plaintiff’s wrongful death, negligence, and products liability claims, and granted her leave to replead. Here, plaintiff Gallit Fischman (pro se daughter of deceased heart-transplant patient Dov Fischman), sued Epic for wrongful death. She alleged that Epic's EHR computer system had design defects and incomplete medication records, preventing doctors from seeing the accurate data needed to adjust her father's medication, ultimately...

In In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24–1068 (June 25, 2026), the US Supreme Court issued an important decision addressing the relationship between EPA-approved pesticide labeling and state-law product liability claims. The Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempted state-law failure-to-warn claims that would require pesticide manufacturers to include warnings different from or in addition to those approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The decision resolves a Circuit split regarding the preemptive effect of federal...

In Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. Avertest, LLC et al, Case No. 25-1977 (4th Cir. June 9, 2026) Columbia Casualty Company ("Columbia") provided claims-made professional liability coverage to Averhealth/Avertest, LLC ("Avertest") through May 1, 2022. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company ("Navigators") provided claims-made coverage from May 1, 2022 to May 1, 2023. This case centers on a dispute between the two insurance companies -- Columbia and Navigators -- which disagree as to which company, if either, is responsible for providing coverage for a claim againsf their insured,...

In Ahmed Shaikh v. Fox News Network, LLC, Case No. 25-12004 (11th Cir. June 4, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where a pro se plaintiff alleged that major media companies unlawfully accessed hidden cameras and devices and used government-supplied “AI mind-reading technology” to read his thoughts, mock him, and generate content. The plaintiff asserted federal claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and state-law claims under Florida’s Security of Communications Act and Florida tort law, invoking...

In Friedman v. Central Maine Power Company, No. 25-1578 (1st Cir. April 29, 2026) the plaintiff was a Maine resident who suffered from a rare and incurable form of blood cancer and a long-time customer of an electric utility that uses smart meters emitting radiofrequency signals to track electricity usage. After the utility received regulatory approval, it allowed customers to keep analog meters for an additional fee, citing health and safety concerns that had been raised but not resolved by the state public utilities commission. The resident, concerned that radiofrequency radiation might...

In Carter v. SP Plus Corporation, No. 25-2127 (April 15, 2026) N.D. Ill., Eastern Div., Plaintiff filed a lawsuit based on state and federal minimum-wage statutes.  The defendant employer appealed from a district court order staying proceedings pending arbitration. At issue was whether the plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate any claims during the employee on boarding process. The district court concluded that defendant did not establish that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate where plaintiff submitted an affidavit explaining that human-relations staff filled out the forms and did not explain them...

In Harris v. W6LS, Inc., No. 24-2056 (March 31, 2026) N.D. Ill., Eastern Div.. the plaintiffs went online and borrowed $600 from defendants at interest rates of nearly 500% per year. Both of the loans violate Illinois’s statutory limits on interest. They later sued, invoking their consumer rights under Illinois and federal law. Defendants sought to enforce an arbitration provision in their loan contracts delegating all questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, while also requiring that these questions be resolved under a body of tribal contract law that did not exist at the time the...

Three different cases were simultaneously decided by the Seventh Circuit: Clay v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, No. 25-2185 (April 1, 2026) N.D. Ill., Eastern Div., Gregg v. Central Transport, LLC, No. 25-2762 (April 1, 2026) N.D. Ill., Eastern Div. and Willis v. Universal Intermodal Services, Inc., No. 25-2761 (April 1, 2026) N.D. Ill..  Here the Seventh Circuit considered whether a legislative amendment to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, which confirmed that damages should be evaluated on a per-person basis, applied retroactively to cases pending when it was enacted. The...

In Stabile v. Macy’s, Case No. 24-2979 (3rd Cir. March 4, 2026), a white gay Macy’s store manager was allegedly fired for trying to apprehend a shoplifter and subsequently filed a discrimination lawsuit.  Plaintiff Stabile alleged that throughout his employment Macy's maintained a corporate culture that was hostile to employees due to their race, sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation.  Macy’s moved to dismiss and compel arbitration based on certain plan documents. Whether a valid arbitration agreement existed was unclear at the District Court level as Stabile did not remember...

The case of Crothersville Lighthouse Tabernacle Church, Inc. v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., No. 22-1082 (7th Cir. March 2, 2026) is an insurance coverage matter arising out of damage caused by a fire.  The insured filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and bad-faith denial of the insured’s replacement-cost claim after the parties disputed the cost to replace a building damaged by the fire. The property was insured for $2.3 million, and the policy provided baseline coverage for its actual cash value, which accounts for depreciation. The policy also promised to pay higher...

In Seagate Technology LLC v. NHK Spring Co., (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 2026), Seagate Technology LLC, a California-based manufacturer of hard disk drives, and two of its foreign subsidiaries (in Thailand and Singapore) brought antitrust claims against NHK Spring Co., Ltd., a Japanese supplier of suspension assemblies—critical hard drive components. NHK pleaded guilty in a separate federal criminal proceeding to conspiring with competitors to fix the prices of these suspension assemblies, which were sold both in the United States and abroad. The majority of the price-fixed assemblies purchased by...

In Lanesborough 2000, LLC v. Nextres, LLC, No. 24-2211 (2d Cir. February 6, 2026), Lanesborough 2000, LLC and Nextres, LLC entered into a loan agreement for the funding of a self-storage facility in Corning, New York. The deal included an arbitration agreement that required disputes to be resolved by binding arbitration. Lanesborough alleged that Nextres breached the agreement by failing to disburse loan funds as promised. An arbitrator found in favor of Lanesborough, awarding consequential damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees based on Nextres’s bad faith conduct....

In Katherine Birl v. Ski Shawnee Inc, No. 25-1070 (3d Cir. January 2, 2026), the parents and natural guardians of minor G.B., appealed the District Court’s order granting summary judgment to Ski Shawnee, concerning injuries suffered by their minor son. Following injuries sustained while snowboarding, Appellants sued Ski Shawnee, who  moved for  summary  judgment,  arguing  that  the  claim  was  barred  under  the Pennsylvania Skier Responsibility Act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102(c) (“PSRA”). The District Court granted the motion, finding that the risks involved in Appellants’ claim were...

In Amagasu v. Fred Beans Family of Dealerships et al., Case No. 1594 EDA 2024 (Superior Court of PA, December 22, 2025),  Francis Amagasu was driving his personal 1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT in 2017 when he tried to overtake another vehicle. He unfortunately lost control of his car, and it rolled over and slammed into some trees. Despite wearing his seatbelt during the rollover, he still hit his head on the roof of the car and ended up with serious enough injuries that have left him a quadriplegic. The following year, Amagasu’s family filed a lawsuit against Mitsubishi. A year later, the family...