Tort actions involving pharmaceuticals and medical devices usually involve state law claims, and therefore, diversity jurisdiction is often the only way to proceed in a federal court. Plaintiffs, however, may join doctors, sales representatives, hospitals, or pharmacies as nondiverse defendants, or in some cases, they may even join multiple plaintiffs from several states to defeat diversity jurisdiction. Because defendants most often prefer to litigate in federal courts, fighting the joinder of these nondiverse defendants is critical.
In the recent case of Arora v. Whirlpool Canada LP,  S.C.C.A. No. 498, the Supreme Court of Canada has refused leave to appeal the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which determined that plaintiffs cannot recover for pure economic loss resulting from the negligent design of a non-dangerous product.
On June 24, 2013, The Supreme Court dealt a quiet setback to the constitutionality of affirmative action by colleges and universities. The decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin was as eagerly anticipated as the decisions of the Court two days later in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, which were hailed as major victories for the gay rights movement. At first glance, the Fisher decision seemed to sidestep the critical question on the use of race-conscious school admission policies. In a 7-1 decision (Justice Kagan was recused from this case), the Justices remanded the case back to the lower courts for further consideration. But, while declining to issue a decision, the Supreme Court made it harder for institutions to use affirmative action and other race-conscious policies to achieve diversity.