Plaintiffs Claim Defendants Misinterpreted Preemption Arguments



DOCUMENTS
  • Reply Brief
  • Response


PHILADELPHIA -- Plaintiffs in a benzene lawsuit have reasserted their arguments for remand, stating that Radiator Specialty has misinterpreted their arguments against removal. Farley, et al. v. Radiator Specialty, et al., No. 05-5059 (E.D. Pa.).

In their Dec. 29 reply to the opposition filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the plaintiffs claim that Radiator Specialty provides no support for its claim that the benzene-containing product at issue in the lawsuit, Liquid Wrench, conformed to the Consumer Product Safety Commission regulations.

'In short, the lack of a federal remedy for personal injuries caused by the …






UPCOMING CONFERENCES




HarrisMartin's MDL Conference: Video Game Addiction and the Latest Mass Tort Updates

May 29, 2024

MORE DETAILS



HarrisMartin's Webinar Series: Video Game Addiction Product Liability Litigation

March 29, 2024

MORE DETAILS