Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Glover v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.

    43 F.4th 304 (2d Cir. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    The Connecticut Supreme Court confirmed that the CPLA creates a cause of action, rooted in traditional Connecticut tort law, against medical device manufacturers that fail to provide adequate warnings to the relevant regulators best positioned to take or recommend precautions against the potential harm. Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (Glover II ), 343 Conn. 513, 537-38, 275 A.3d 168 (2022). Accordingly, in view of the principles laid out in our previous decision, we conclude that the Glovers’ CPLA claims are not preempted by the FDCA, and VACATE the district court's dismissal of the CPLA claims.

  2. Hardy v. Ole Mexican Foods, Inc.

    No. 22-1805 (2d Cir. May. 22, 2023)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming dismissal of GBL claim where alleged deceptive statement was “[g]laringly absent from the [product's] packaging”

    This is of no moment, since the California district court's decision dealt with a different state's statutes and, in any event, has no binding effect on this Court. See Glover v. Bausch &Lomb Inc., 6 F.4th 229, 240 (2d Cir. 2021), certified question answered, 343 Conn. 513 (2022). [*] The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official case caption as set forth above.

  3. Lester v. CVS Pharm.

    22-cv-7334 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2024)

    Glover v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 6 F.4th 229, 236 n.3 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Ricci v. Teamsters Union Local 456, 781 F.3d 25, 28 (2d Cir. 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)), certified question answered, 275 A.3d 168 (Conn. 2022). III. DISCUSSION

  4. O'Neil v. Somatics, LLC

    20-cv-175-PB (D.N.H. Sep. 30, 2022)

    In response, the Connecticut Supreme Court explained that its state law did indeed recognize a duty to report adverse events to regulators. See Glover v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 343 Conn. 513, 557 (2022).