Andrew Bradt co-writes for Dorf on Law, Feb. 13, 2017
Although MDLs are commonly thought of as tools to resolve mass torts, there seems to be nothing in the statute that would prevent its use in public-law cases like the one involving Trump’s executive order. And one might imagine reasons why the parties on both sides of the “v” and the involved judges might want to try it.
Andrew Bradt interviewed by KPCC-FM, Feb. 10, 2017
“In the near-term, the California part of the 9th Circuit at least, and maybe Washington and Oregon, would still be places where there would be courts in which to challenge President Trump’s orders. In the long term, breaking up the 9th Circuit and reducing its power would certainly reduce the liberal counterweight effect that the court is sometimes able to play.”
Andrew Bradt quoted by Buzzfeed, Jan. 31, 2017
“We’re not dealing in a world where various interest groups have had time to strategize a litigation approach. Rather, we have a bit of a free for all. And when there’s a free for all, that’s when intervention makes sense, because courts want to make sure that all of the relevant parties have a seat at the table,” Bradt said.
Andrew Bradt quoted by The Globe and Mail, Dec. 7, 2016
Andrew Bradt … noted the U.S. Supreme Court has held punitive damages should be no more than 10 times compensatory damages. The $1.041-billion award was mainly punitive, with just $32-million in compensatory damages. Bradt said the final award could be even lower than $320-million, since the high court has also said punitive damages awards should be closely tied to plaintiffs’ injuries rather than as a broader deterrent.
Andrew Bradt quoted by PharmaLive, Dec. 7, 2016
Andrew Bradt, a professor at University of California Berkeley School of Law, noted the U.S. Supreme Court has held punitive damages should be no more than 10 times compensatory damages. The $1.041 billion award was mainly punitive, with just $32 million in compensatory damages.
Andrew Bradt co-writes for Daily Journal (registration required), Nov. 8, 2016
In many ways MDL practice resembles class action practice. And without the judge providing a signal that the deal is worth taking, individuals may be left in the dark when deciding whether to accept. In an MDL-dominated litigation landscape, judges should embrace an information-intermediary role by expressing an opinion on the fairness of proposed mass settlements.
Andrew Bradt quoted in San Francisco Chronicle, April 18, 2016
Still, he said, Lyft’s responses are unlikely to play well in the court of public opinion — and could hurt the company’s reputation. “It seems like misdirection if one of their main selling points is protection by an insurance policy, but the realities of recovering under that policy are extremely onerous,” Bradt said.
Andrew Bradt quoted in Daily Journal (registration required), Oct. 6, 2015
“It’s not unusual for a potential defendant to be reaching out to potential plaintiffs, either to offer some alternative remedy or recall a product or replace it,” Bradt said.
Andrew Bradt interviewed by Bloomberg BNA, January 21, 2015
Given how the high court has treated MDLs “in the past, as a collection of individual cases consolidated for pretrial and not a complete consolidation like a class action, the result was inevitable,” he said.
Andrew Bradt quoted in FairWarning, September 29, 2014
“The odds are long,” said Andrew Bradt … “but I would have no basis for saying there’s any shenanigans going on.”