This case was a negligence case brought against various defendants based on a catastrophic 18-wheeler crash that killed seven members of a Mexican family. The Defendants filed a summary judgment motion seeking to apply Mexican law. The motion was denied. The case later settled for a substantial sum.

This brief was filed in California state court in response to a motion filed by the defendants in a fentanyl pain patch case seeking application of Michigan law, which would have eliminated plaintiff’s claims. The defendants argued that Michigan law should apply because the case involved the death of a Michigan resident that occurred in Michigan allegedly as a result of the patient’s use of a fentanyl pain patch prescribed, purchased and used in Michigan. Plaintiff responded that the defendant that manufactured the patch had its principal place of business in California and actually designed and manufactured the patch in California. Plaintiff argued that California – not Michigan – had the predominant interest in applying its own laws in order to deter wrongful conduct within its borders. The court agreed and denied the defendants’ motion.

This brief was filed in California state court in response to a motion filed by the defendants in a fentanyl pain patch case seeking application of Michigan law, which would have eliminated plaintiff’s claims. The defendants argued that Michigan law should apply because the case involved the death of a Michigan resident that occurred in Michigan allegedly as a result of the patient’s use of a fentanyl pain patch prescribed, purchased and used in Michigan. Plaintiff responded that the defendant that manufactured the patch had its principal place of business in California and actually designed and manufactured the patch in California. Plaintiff argued that California – not Michigan – had the predominant interest in applying its own laws in order to deter wrongful conduct within its borders. The court agreed and denied the defendants’ motion.

This brief was filed in California state court in response to a motion filed by the defendants in a fentanyl pain patch case seeking application of Pennsylvania law. The defendants argued that Pennsylvania law should apply because the case involved the death of a Pennsylvania resident that occurred in Pennsylvania allegedly as a result of the patient’s use of a fentanyl pain patch prescribed, purchased and used in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff responded that the defendant that manufactured the patch had its principal place of business in California and actually designed and manufactured the patch in California. Plaintiff argued that California – not Pennsylvania – had the predominant interest in applying its own laws in order to deter wrongful conduct within its borders. The court agreed and denied the defendants’ motion.

This brief was filed in California state court in response to a motion filed by the defendants in a fentanyl pain patch case seeking application of Michigan law, which would have eliminated plaintiff’s claims. The defendants argued that Michigan law should apply because the case involved the death of a Michigan resident that occurred in Michigan allegedly as a result of the patient’s use of a fentanyl pain patch prescribed, purchased and used in Michigan. Plaintiff responded that the defendant that manufactured the patch had its principal place of business in California and actually designed and manufactured the patch in California. Plaintiff argued that California – not Michigan – had the predominant interest in applying its own laws in order to deter wrongful conduct within its borders. The court agreed and denied the defendants’ motion.