Ethicon’s decision to use a Pennsylvania-based company to manufacture its pelvic mesh products is the reason why nearly 100 lawsuits against the mesh-maker should remain in the Keystone State, according to a new ruling shedding light on how judges in Philadelphia may interpret the U.S. Supreme Court’s high-profile pronouncement in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California.

The opinion, which Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Arnold New issued May 18, comes out about six months after he denied the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary’s bid to have a significant portion of the pelvic mesh litigation removed from the First Judicial District for lack of jurisdiction.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]