Bijan Esfandiari

Attorney Profile

Top Rated Products Liability Attorney in Los Angeles, CA

Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C.
 | 10940 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-207-3233
Fax: 310-820-7444
Selected To Super Lawyers: 2017 - 2021
Selected To Rising Stars: 2009 - 2016
Licensed Since: 2002
Practice Areas:
  • Personal Injury - Products: Plaintiff (60%),
  • Class Action/Mass Torts: Plaintiff (30%),
  • Personal Injury - General: Plaintiff (10%)
Languages Spoken:
  • English,
  • German,
  • Persian (Farsi)
    Attorney Profile

    Bijan Esfandiari is a pharmaceutical product liability litigation attorney and partner at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman in Los Angeles. He has successfully represented clients in state and federal courts across the nation at both the trial and appellate level in wrongful death and catastrophic personal injury cases.

    Bijan has had the privilege of participating in cases that have shaped and developed the law for the benefit of injured victims and consumers of pharmaceutical products. In one such case, the Court agreed with his arguments and, in an issue of first impression (a legal case concerning a new or undecided legal question of interpretation of law which has never arisen before in any reported case), held that drug manufacturers owe an affirmative duty to warn regarding risks associated with children’s off-label use. Bijan’s published cases have also exposed reprehensible corporate conduct. For example, a federal court in Pennsylvania noted that “internal documents suggest that Defendant acted with a wanton and willful disregard for the safety of its consumers,” and thus allowed Bijan’s clients to proceed with their punitive damages claims.

    He has also been at the forefront of the preemption battle and has successfully argued against preemption (drug/device manufacturer immunity) in numerous cases. Most recently, in 2014, Bijan successfully briefed and argued the first and only medical device preemption case to be heard by Maryland Court of Special Appeals, wherein in an issue of first impression, the three judge panel unanimously agreed with Bijan’s arguments that plaintiff’s claims were not preempted and held that plaintiff could proceed with his claims against the medical device manufacturer. McCormick v. Medtronic, Inc., 219 Md. App.485, 101 A.3d 467, 474 (2014) (“We shall hold that federal law does not expressly or impliedly preempt the plaintiffs’ claims concerning misrepresentations or express warranties that the manufacturer may have made in voluntary communications with the public or with members of the medical profession.”).

     

    Similarly, Bijan successfully briefed and argued the first drug preemption case to ever be heard by the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal in Chicago, Illinois. In the landmark decision, the three judge panel of the Seventh Circuit unanimously agreed with Bijan’s arguments and held that plaintiffs’ claims against the drug manufacturer were not preempted by federal law. Mason v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 596 F.3d. 387 (7th Cir. 2010). The significance of these landmark rulings is they ensure that drug and medical device companies who engage in deceptive or impermissible conduct are not entitled to immunity (preemption) and must be held accountable for monetary damages in a court of law for any injuries that they or their products cause to consumers.

    In addition to the previously mentioned appellate decisions, Bijan has likewise successfully opposed preemption in numerous other state and federal trial courts, including Tucker v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 596 F.Supp.2d 1225 (S.D.Ind. 2008); Knipe v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 583 F.Supp.2d 553 (E.D.Pa 2008); Forst v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 639 F.Supp.2d 948 (E.D.Wis. 2009); Dorsett v. Sandoz, Inc., 699 F.Supp.2d 1142 (C.D.Cal. 2010); and Cabana v. Stryker Biotech LLC, 2012 WL 3876245 (Cal.Super.Ct., Aug. 20, 2012). Bijan also co-authored amicus briefs in support of the respondents in the Supreme Court’s landmark cases Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S.Ct. 1187 (2009) and Pliva v. Mensing, 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011).

    Bijan has written numerous articles, including “Complete Tort Immunity For Drug Manufacturers Is Bad For The Public Health,” published in Mealey’s™ Litigation Report, “Preemption’s Requiem in the Wake of Wyeth v. Levine,” Mealey’s™ Emerging Drugs & Devices and “Levine To Mensing — A Journey From The Sublime To The Ridiculous,” Mealey’s™ Emerging Drugs & Devices. Most recently, he co-wrote “Challenging Medical Ghostwriting in US Courts,” published in PLoS Medicine.

    ------------------------------------------

    Baum Hedlund began litigating Zantac cancer lawsuits in 2019 after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it was investigating Zantac cancer risks after testing of certain Zantac (ranitidine hydrochloride) tablets found the commonly-used heartburn medication contains a cancer-causing chemical up to 3,000 times greater than the FDA’s daily intake limit. The carcinogenic chemical present in Zantac is known as N-nitrosodimethylamine (“NDMA”). The FDA requested a full recall of all Zantac and ranitidine products in April 2020 after it determined that the NDMA in some ranitidine medications “increases over time and when stored at higher than room temperatures may result in consumer exposure to unacceptable levels.”

    The firm is also leading the Gardasil vaccine litigation against Merck. Thousands of boys and girls and young men and women have reported serious and disabling injuries after getting the Gardasil vaccine. These injuries range from auto immune diseases, disabling neurological side effects to reproductive disorders and even death. Baum Hedlund has filed lawsuits for both young women and men alleging Merck misled the FDA, legislators, doctors and moms about the safety and efficacy of its Gardasil vaccine. The lawsuit asserts Merck purposely downplayed the risk of Gardasil’s ingredients, including a proprietary aluminum compound (a potent neurotoxin) and secret and potentially hazardous DNA particles.

     
    Practice Areas
    • 60%Personal Injury - Products: Plaintiff
    • 30%Class Action/Mass Torts: Plaintiff
    • 10%Personal Injury - General: Plaintiff
    Focus Areas

    Medical Devices, Pharmaceutical, Products Liability, Class Actions, Personal Injury - Plaintiff, Wrongful Death

    Selections

    Selected to Super Lawyers for 5 yearsmiddle-imageSelected to Rising Stars for 8 years

    Super Lawyers: 2017 - 2021 Rising Stars: 2009 - 2016

    Email Me

    To: Bijan Esfandiari
    Super Lawyers: Potential Client Inquiry

    Disclaimer:

    The information contained in this web site is intended to convey general information. It should not be construed as legal advice or opinion. It is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship. The use of the internet or this contact form for communication is not necessarily a secure environment. Contacting a lawyer or law firm email through this service will not create an attorney-client relationship, and information will not necessarily be treated as privileged or confidential.

    About Bijan Esfandiari

    Admitted: 2002, California

    Professional Webpage: https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/attorneys/bijan-esfandiari/

    Honors/Awards:

    • Selected to: Southern California Super Lawyers® - Rising Stars, 2009 - 2016
    • Avvo.com Superb Score 10 out of 10
    • The National Trial Lawyers Top 100 Trial Lawyers
    • Selected to: Southern California Super Lawyers® 2017 – 2020
    • Up-and-Coming 100: 2016 Southern California Rising Stars – Top List
    • Listed, The Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers™
    • Member, UCLA School of Law Moot Court Honors Program

    Bar/Professional Activity:

    • Court Admissions:California, 2002;  U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2002;  U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2002;  U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2005;  U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2005;  U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 2008;  U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan, 2008;  U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2008;  U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2008;  U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2009;  U.S. Supreme Court, 2011;  U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2012;  U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 2013
    • Member:  State Bar of California;  American Association for Justice: Leader’s Forum; Products Liability Section; STEP-Toxic, Environmental and Pharmaceutical Torts Section; Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles; Member, UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs;  Contributing Author to The Docket, a UCLA School of Law Publication

    Pro bono/Community Service:

    • Member, Representative Assembly of the Palms Neighborhood Council
    • Public Counsel Volunteer Attorney, 2007

    Scholarly Lectures/Writings:

    • Program: Medtronic InFUSE Litigation Group; Topic: Status of Cases That Have Survived Preemption Motions and Discovery Strategies and Different Venue Options; Organization: American Association for Justice; Event:  2014 AAJ Annual Convention; Location: Baltimore, Maryland; Date: July 26 – 30, 2014, Speaker
    • Topic: “Status of the Infuse Litigation”; Organization: Mass Torts Made PerfectEvent:  Medtronic Infuse Litigation Update; Location: Las Vegas, Nevada; Date: October 10, 2013, Speaker
    • Topic: Panel: Corruption; Organization: Selling Sickness; Event: Selling Sickness, People Before Profits, Session VI; Location: Washington, D.C.; Date: February 20 – 22, 2013, Speaker
    • Topic: “Living with the Mensing Decision”; Organization: Mass Torts Made PerfectEvent:  Actos and Pelvic Mesh Litigation Update; Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Date: February 8, 2012, Speaker
    • Topic: “Legal Implications of Pharmaceutical Ghostwriting”; Organization: Faculty of Law’s Conference; Event: The Ethics of Ghost Authorship in Biomedical Research: Concerns and Remedies Workshop; Location: University of Toronto; Date: May 4, 2011, Speaker
    • Topic: “Oral Advocacy Competition Participant”; Organization: American Bar Association; Event: ABA Forum on Communications Law – Media Advocacy Workshop; Location: Key Largo, Florida; Date: February 8, 2007, Speaker
    • Topic: “Strategies for Litigating Copyright Cases When Infringement is Uncontested”; Organization: San Fernando Valley Bar Association; Event: Intellectual Property, Entertainment Law & Internet Law Section; Location: Woodland Hills, California; Date: February 17, 2006, Speaker
    • "Challenging Medical Ghostwriting in US Courts" PLOS Medicine January 24, 2012, Author
    • "Reason Magazine Perpetuates False Information About Safety and Efficacy of Antidepressants", September 30, 2011, Author
    • "Levine To Mensing — A Journey From The Sublime To The Ridiculous" LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Emerging Drugs & Devices, Volume 16, Issue #16, August 18, 2011, Author
    • "Outsmarting the 'Learned-Intermediary Doctrine' Defense", The Advocate, February 2010, pg 62, Author
    • "Preemption's Requiem in the Wake of Wyeth v. Levine" LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Emerging Drugs & Devices, Volume 14, Issue #10, May 2009, Author
    • "Complete Tort Immunity For Drug Manufacturers Is Bad For The Public Health: A Commentary On Colacicco v. Apotex And Other Recent Preemption Decisions" LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Litigation Report: Antidepressant Report, Volume 4, Issue #10, May 2008, Author
    • "Caught Without a License", Marketing Management - Marketing Law, November/December 2007, Author
    • "YouTube Sued: It's a Riot", American Bar Association, Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section (TIPS) Media Privacy Committee Newsletter, Fall 2006, Author
    • "Camisoles: Providing Thin Protection" IP Law 360, September 28, 2006, Author
    • "Grokster: Inducing Further Litigation", ABA Tort Trial & Practice Section, Intellectual Property Law Committee Newsletter, Fall 2005, Author

    Representative Clients:

    • Hricik v. Stryker Biotech, LLC, 89 F. Supp. 3d 694 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (granting plaintiff’s motion to remand the case back to state court)
    • McCormick v. Medtronic, Inc., 219 Md. App. 485, 101 A.3d 467 (2014) (unanimously reversing the trial court’s preemption/dismissal ruling and holding that injured patient’s claims arising out of medical device manufacturer’s off-label promotion of its medical device were not preempted by federal law and thus allowing plaintiff to proceed with his meritorious claims)
    • Boutte v. Stryker Biotech, LLC, 67 F. Supp. 3d 732, 734 (M.D. La. 2014) (denying defendant’s motion to dismiss and permitting plaintiff to proceed with his products liability claims against medical device manufacturer)
    • Cabana v. Stryker Biotech, LLC et al., Case No. BC465313, 2012 WL 3729227 (Cal.Super. Ct., August 20, 2012) (holding that injured patient’s state law claims arising out of medical device manufacturer’s off-label promotion of its bone morphogenetic protein [Infuse] were not expressly nor impliedly preempted by federal law)
    • Dorsett v. Sandoz, Inc., 699 F.Supp.2d 1142 (C.D.Cal. 2010) (denying defendants’ preemption motion and holding that both name-brand and generic drug manufacturers have an affirmative duty to issue warnings)
    • Tucker v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 701 F.Supp.2d 1040 (S.D.Ind.2010) (denying defendant’s learned intermediary defense and further allowing plaintiffs’ experts to testify regarding the causal association between antidepressants and increased suicidal behavior)
    • Mason v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 596 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 2010) (unanimously reversing the trial court’s preemption ruling  and allowing plaintiffs’ claims to proceed to a trial on the merits)
    • Forst v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 639 F.Supp.2d 948 (E.D.Wis.,2009) (holding that plaintiffs’ claims are not preempted by federal law)
    • Forst v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 602 F.Supp.2d 960 (E.D.Wis. 2009) (holding that Wisconsin has not adopted the learned intermediary doctrine and allowing all of plaintiffs’ claims, including, negligence, fraud and punitive damages to proceed to the jury)
    • Cunningham v. SmithKline Beecham, 255 F.R.D. 474 (N.D.Ind. 2009) (ordering defendant to produce documents and awarding sanctions)
    • Knipe v. SmithKline Beecham, 583 F.Supp.2d 602 (E.D.Pa. 2008) (holding that a drug manufacturer owes a duty to warn regarding risks associated with off-label uses and allowing plaintiffs’ claims for compensatory and  punitive damages to proceed to the jury)
    • Knipe v.SmithKline Beecham, 583 F.Supp.2d 553 (E.D.Pa 2008) (holding that plaintiffs’ claims are not preempted by federal law)
    • Tucker v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 596 F.Supp.2d 1225 (S.D.Ind. 2008) (granting plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and holding that plaintiff’s claims are not preempted by federal law)
    • Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802

    Educational Background:

    • University of California, Los Angeles, B.A., cum laude, 1999

    Industry Groups

    • Wrongful Death Law
    • Class Actions
    • Complex And Multi-District Litigation
    • Consumer Litigation
    • Personal Injury
    • Pharmaceutical Drug Liability
    • Product Liability Law
    • Qui Tam Claims
    • Whistleblower Protection
    Show More
    Office Location for Bijan Esfandiari

    10940 Wilshire Blvd.
    17th Floor
    Los Angeles, CA 90024

    Phone: 310-207-3233

    Fax: 310-820-7444

    Bijan Esfandiari:

    Last Updated: 4/16/2021

    Page Generated: 0.82654809951782 sec