With Details Like These, Who Needs Enemies?

Looks like Judge Ricardo S. Martinez (W.D. Wash.) wasn’t too crazy about “Plaintiffs’ use of anonymous witnesses,” in the Cell Therapeutics action, tagging their revelations as “generalized and speculative statements.” But before you Defendants run off citing this one in your case, better make sure those witnesses said things as specific as they did here, such as “Bianco knew everything,” and had “people who reported to him,” who told him “every possible detail.” Good luck getting details like that, especially about a CEO, wow.

Of course, to be fair, Plaintiffs complaint may have had more detail from witnesses, but these are the only ones cited in Judge Martinez' Order, so that's as far as the Nugget has the time (or energy) to go.

Result? Plaintiffs get 30 days to amend and try again.

You can read Heywood v. Cell Therapeutics, issued May 4, 2006, at 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28684.

Nugget: “Plaintiffs' attempt to analogize similar cases is also unavailing. All the cases on which plaintiffs substantially rely are distinguishable; in each case, the defendants either grossly misrepresented some specific material fact, or failed to disclose some concrete indication that they could not expect FDA approval for their product.”