Practice areas: Products Liability, Class Action & Mass Torts; view more
Licensed in California since: 2002
Education: University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law
Languages spoken: English, German, Persian (Farsi)
Call today:
888-795-5399
Wisner Baum LLP
11111 Santa Monica BlvdSuite 1750
Los Angeles, CA 90025 Visit website
Bijan Esfandiari is a pharmaceutical product liability litigation attorney and senior partner at Wisner Baum in Los Angeles, where he focuses his practice on complex and multi-district litigation, including defective medical devices, pharmaceutical drug product liability, and consumer fraud. Since joining the firm in 2007, Bijan has worked as lead counsel on several cutting-edge pharmaceutical and medical device cases. His legal work has helped thousands of clients secure compensation for their injuries and shaped the law for the benefit of those harmed by dangerous drugs and medical devices.
Bijan spent the first five years of his legal career as a defense attorney at a major national law firm. While working on a variety of cases spanning multiple disciplines, including entertainment law, intellectual property, and toxic torts, he became discontented with representing corporate polluters. Recalling that he went to law school to help those who were harmed by the greed and neglect of others, Bijan left the defense firm and joined Baum Hedlund (now Wisner Baum), where he immediately found a committed group of lawyers and colleagues that shared his dedication to helping people harmed by corporate malfeasance.
Bijan 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. Utilizing the discovery process, he has fought to de-designate internal corporate documents demonstrating that pharmaceutical manufacturers intentionally concealed dangers associated with their products simply to maintain sales and profits. In a noteworthy case against drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Bijan obtained, examined, and presented evidence to the Court, which later ruled that: “internal GSK documents suggest that Defendant acted with a wanton and willful disregard for the safety of its consumers…Given such evidence, Plaintiffs may be able to establish at trial that Defendant knew of the risks of pediatric use of its drug yet failed to warn solely to increase the commercial profitability of Paxil.” The ruling allowed Bijan’s clients to proceed with claims for punitive damages and resulted in a successful resolution of the case.
Bijan routinely works on challenging cases for severely injured clients that other law firms refuse to represent due to the costs and legal hurdles. His efforts have not only helped these clients that other attorneys turned away; they also led to precedent-setting legal rulings that have benefited all plaintiffs and consumers.
Many of these precedential successes came in the form of defeating pharmaceutical and medical device companies’ claims that they are immune (preempted) from liability by virtue of their products being approved by the FDA. In 2014, Bijan successfully briefed and argued the first and only medical device preemption case at the time before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. In an issue of first impression, the three-judge panel in McCormick v. Medtronic, Inc., 219 Md. App.485, unanimously agreed with Bijan’s arguments that the device manufacturer was not entitled to immunity and held that the plaintiff could proceed with his claims against the medical device manufacturer. This appellate success led to thousands of other similarly injured plaintiffs being able to successfully bring and maintain claims against the device manufacturer.
In a similar proceeding, Bijan successfully briefed and argued the first drug preemption case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The three-judge panel in Mason v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 596 F.3d. 387 unanimously agreed with Bijan’s arguments, finding that plaintiffs’ claims against the drug manufacturer were not preempted by federal law.
The significance of these and other landmark rulings cannot be overstated. They ensure that drug and medical device companies that engage in deceptive or impermissible conduct are not entitled to immunity and that they can be held accountable in a court of law for any injuries they or their products cause to consumers.
Aside from obtaining substantial monetary recoveries for his clients, the cases Bijan and his colleagues have worked on helped give the public and medical community a chance to learn more about previously undisclosed risks associated with drugs, devices, and products. In multiple instances, his casework helped lead to labeling changes or dangerous products being removed from the market to prevent consumers and patients from suffering harm.
The son of an infectious disease scientist, Bijan was surrounded by members of the medical community from a young age. In addition to the joy he receives from representing and obtaining justice for his clients, a favorite part of Bijan’s legal practice is that it allows him to learn from some of the world’s leading medical experts in their respective fields, retained in the pharmaceutical and medical device cases he handles.
Practice areas
Personal Injury - Products: Plaintiff, Class Action/Mass Torts: PlaintiffFocus areas
Class Actions, Medical Devices, Pharmaceutical
- 70% Personal Injury - Products: Plaintiff
- 30% Class Action/Mass Torts: Plaintiff
First Admitted: 2002, California
Professional Webpage: https://www.wisnerbaum.com/attorneys/bijan-esfandiari/
Bar / Professional Activity
- U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2023
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 2022
- U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, 2021
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, 2021
- U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2021
- Co-Lead Plaintiff’s Counsel for the Gardasil MDL - In Re: Gardasil Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 3036 (U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina), 2022
- U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 2013
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2012
- U.S. Supreme Court, 2011
- U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2009
- U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2008
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2008
- U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 2008
- U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan, 2008
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2005
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2005
- U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2002
- U.S. District Court, Central District of California, , 2002
- California, 2002
- American Association for Justice: Leader’s Forum
- Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles
- Consumer Attorneys of California
- UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs, Member
- The Docket, a UCLA School of Law Publication, Contributing Author
Videos
- The Gardasil HPV vaccine litigation is moving forward now that a panel of judges approved the MDL-federal multi-district litigation against Merck (a few days before this interview was conducted). Baum Hedlund Senior Shareholder Bijan Esfandiari sat down with Mark York from Mass Tort News LegalCast to bring everyone up-to-speed on the Gardasil lawsuits. , Gardasil HPV Vaccine Litigation Update with Bijan Esfandiari – Gardasil MDL 3606, 2022
- Hospital Performed Experimental Back Surgeries
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), 2015
- 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), 2014
- 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), 2014
- 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), 2012
- 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), 2010
- 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), 2010
- 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), 2010
- Forst v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 639 F.Supp.2d 948 (E.D.Wis.,2009) (holding that plaintiffs’ claims are not preempted by federal law), 2009
- 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), 2009
- Cunningham v. SmithKline Beecham, 255 F.R.D. 474 (N.D.Ind. 2009) (ordering defendant to produce documents and awarding sanctions), 2009
- 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), 2009
- Knipe v.SmithKline Beecham, 583 F.Supp.2d 553 (E.D.Pa 2008) (holding that plaintiffs’ claims are not preempted by federal law), 2008
- 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), 2008
- Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802, 2005
Pro bono / Community Service
- Public Counsel Volunteer Attorney, 2007
- Member, Representative Assembly of the Palms Neighborhood Council
Educational Background
- University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, J.D.
- University of California, Los Angeles, B.A., cum laude
- UCLA School of Law Moot Court Honors Program, Member
Scholarly Lectures / Writings
- In this webinar, the panel explained the vaccine court process, the latest on the MDL in North Carolina, and updates regarding case criteria, injuries, and science overview. MDL update, court orders, and trial dates The science and the case against Merck What to look for/case criteria, SOLs Bellwether discovery How does Vaccine Court work?, Panel member, Gardasil HPV Vaccine Litigation Update, MTMP - Mass Tort Made Perfect, 2023
- Gardasil litigation update, Co-Chair, Speaker, Co-Chair Welcome; Gardasil Litigation; Gardasil and Autoimmune Injury: Diving Into the Science, HarrisMartin’s MDL Conference: Recalled Infant Formula and Gardasil, Legal, Mass Torts, 2022
- Medtronic InFUSE Litigation Group, Status of Cases That Have Survived Preemption Motions and Discovery Strategies and Different Venue Options, Speaker, Status of Cases That Have Survived Preemption Motions and Discovery Strategies and Different Venue Options, American Association for Justice, 2014 AAJ Annual Convention, Baltimore, Maryland, Legal, 2014
- Status of the Infuse Litigation, Speaker, Status of the Infuse Litigation, Mass Torts Made Perfect, Medtronic Infuse Litigation Update, Las Vegas, Nevada, Legal, 2013
- Panel: Corruption, Speaker, Panel: Corruption, Selling Sickness, Selling Sickness, People Before Profits, Session VI, Washington, D.C., Legal, 2013
- Living with the Mensing Decision, Speaker, Living with the Mensing Decision,, Mass Torts Made Perfect, Actos and Pelvic Mesh Litigation Update, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Legal, 2012
- Challenging Medical Ghostwriting in US Courts, Author, Challenging Medical Ghostwriting in US Courts, PLOS Medicine, Legal, 2012
- Legal Implications of Pharmaceutical Ghostwriting, Speaker, Legal Implications of Pharmaceutical Ghostwriting, Faculty of Law’s Conference, The Ethics of Ghost Authorship in Biomedical Research: Concerns and Remedies Workshop, University of Toronto, Legal, 2011
- Levine To Mensing — A Journey From The Sublime To The Ridiculous, Author, Levine To Mensing — A Journey From The Sublime To The Ridiculous, LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Emerging Drugs & Devices, Volume 16, Issue #16, Legal, 2011
- Reason Magazine Perpetuates False Information About Safety and Efficacy of Antidepressants, Author, Reason Magazine Perpetuates False Information About Safety and Efficacy of Antidepressants, Baum Hedlund Law, Legal, 2011
- Outsmarting the 'Learned-Intermediary Doctrine' Defense, Author, Outsmarting the 'Learned-Intermediary Doctrine' Defense, The Advocate, 2010
- Preemption's Requiem in the Wake of Wyeth v. Levine, Author, Preemption's Requiem in the Wake of Wyeth v. Levine, LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Emerging Drugs & Devices, Volume 14, Issue #10, Legal, 2009
- Complete Tort Immunity For Drug Manufacturers Is Bad For The Public Health: A Commentary On Colacicco v. Apotex And Other Recent Preemption Decisions, 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, Legal, 2008
- Oral Advocacy Competition Participant, Speaker, Oral Advocacy Competition Participant, American Bar Association, ABA Forum on Communications Law – Media Advocacy Workshop, Key Largo, Florida, Legal, 2007
- Caught Without a License, Author, Caught Without a License, Marketing Management - Marketing Law, Legal, 2007
- Strategies for Litigating Copyright Cases When Infringement is Uncontested, Speaker, Strategies for Litigating Copyright Cases When Infringement is Uncontested, San Fernando Valley Bar Association, Intellectual Property, Entertainment Law & Internet Law Section, Woodland Hills, California, Legal, 2006
- YouTube Sued: It's a Riot, Author, YouTube Sued: It's a Riot, American Bar Association, Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section (TIPS) Media Privacy Committee Newsletter, Legal, 2006
- Camisoles: Providing Thin Protection, Author, Camisoles: Providing Thin Protection, IP Law 360, Legal, 2006
- Grokster: Inducing Further Litigation, Author, Grokster: Inducing Further Litigation, ABA Tort Trial & Practice Section, Intellectual Property Law Committee Newsletter, Legal, 2005
Honors
- Superb Score 10 out of 10, Avvo.com
- 2022 - 2026, The Best Lawyers in America, Best Lawyers, 2026
- California Power House, Law360 Regional Powerhouse Series, 2021
- 2023-2026, Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers, Lawdragon, 2026
- 500 Leading Lawyers in America, Lawdragon, 2026
- AV® Preeminent 5.0 out of 5 Peer Review Rating, Martindale Hubbell
- Products Liability Trial Lawyers Association – Top 25, The National Trial Lawyers
- Top 100 Trial Lawyers, Civil Plaintiff, The National Trial Lawyers
Office location for Bijan Esfandiari
11111 Santa Monica Blvd
Suite 1750
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: 888-795-5399
Selections
- Super Lawyers: 2017 - 2027
- Rising Stars: 2009 - 2016