Bijan Esfandiari

Bijan Esfandiari: Attorney with Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C.

Biography

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, 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. Awards and Honors:

Selected to: Southern California Super Lawyers®2017 – 2018 Selected to: Southern California Super Lawyers® – Rising Stars, 2009 – 2016 Up-and-Coming 100: 2016 Southern California Rising Stars – Top List Avvo.com Superb Score 10 out of 10 Listed, The Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers™ Member, UCLA School of Law Moot Court Honors Program

Areas of Practice (8)

  • Wrongful Death
  • Catastrophic Injury
  • Drug and Medical Device Litigation
  • Class Actions
  • Complex and Multi-District Litigation
  • Mass Torts
  • Consumer Fraud
  • Product Liability

Education & Credentials

Contact Information:
310-694-5913  Phone
310-207-3233  Phone
310-820-7444  Fax
www.baumhedlundlaw.com
www.airplanecrash-lawyer.com
University Attended:
University of California, Los Angeles, B.A., cum laude, 1999
Law School Attended:
University of California, Los Angeles, J.D., 2002
Year of First Admission:
2002
Admission:
2008, U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan; 2012, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; 2013, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit; 2008, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin; 2008, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit; 2002, California; 2005, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California; 2005, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California; 2009, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit; 2008, U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit; 2002, U.S. District Court, Central District of California; 2002, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; 2011, U.S. Supreme Court
Memberships:
State Bar of California Los Angeles County Bar Association American Association for Justice: Leader’s Forum; Medtronic InFUSE® Litigation Group; Products Liability Section; Qui Tam Litigation Group; 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
Languages:
Farsi and English
Birth Information:
Teheran, Iran, 1976
Reported Cases:
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) 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) 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) 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
ISLN:
917053434
Hobbies & interests:
Member, Representative Assembly of the Palms Neighborhood Council Public Counsel Volunteer Attorney, 2007
Payment Information:
  • Free Initial Consultation
  • Fixed Fees Available

Peer Reviews

Client Reviews

This attorney does not have client reviews.
Disclaimer

Video

Los Angeles, California

Contact Bijan Esfandiari

Required Fields

Required Fields


By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.