Talcum Powder Litigation Report
Hot on the heels of separate $72 million and $55 million verdicts entered against Johnson & Johnson defendants, HarrisMartin has launched this Talcum Powder Litigation Report, an online-only resource dedicated solely to news on talc-based powder ovarian cancer claims.
SEARCH THE ARCHIVES
A California appellate court has affirmed a trial court order granting Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. a new trial in an ovarian cancer talcum powder case that ended in a $417 million verdict, but reversed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict order on liability entered in favor of the same company, concluding that internal documents demonstrated the defendant knew of the link between ovarian cancer and perineal talc use.
The New Jersey federal judge overseeing the national multidistrict litigation docket for talcum powder claims has remanded six cases to Louisiana state court, ruling that the plaintiffs have asserted colorable negligence and product liability claims against a non-diverse defendant.
Issue #31, June 2019
Talcum Powder MDL PSC: Scientific Literature ‘Fully Supports’ Correlation Between Asbestos and Ovarian Cancer
The Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee has opposed Johnson & Johnson’s motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ experts’ asbestos-related opinions, contending that both the scientific literature and internal documents establish the presence of asbestos in the mines and materials used for talcum powder products.
A Pennsylvania federal court has remanded an ovarian cancer talcum powder action, finding that the Johnson & Johnson defendants had failed to show that the lawsuit triggered Imerys Talc America’s duty to automatically indemnify the Baby Powder manufacturer.
A Florida federal court has denied Johnson & Johnson’s efforts to stay an ovarian cancer talcum powder action, saying that pausing the proceedings would result in “significant prejudice” to the plaintiff.
Louisiana Court Remands Talcum Powder Claims, Says Connection with Imerys’ Bankruptcy Not ‘Sufficiently Strong’
A Louisiana federal court is the latest to remand talcum powder claims removed as part of Johnson & Johnson’s efforts to fix venue in Delaware on grounds that the cases are related to Imerys Talc America’s ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, concluding that the connection between those proceedings and the underlying case was not “sufficiently strong.”
A plaintiff whose $55 million talcum powder ovarian cancer verdict was tossed on jurisdiction grounds has re-filed her complaint directly into the New Jersey federal court overseeing the national multidistrict litigation docket for talcum powder claims.
Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. have filed a reply brief backing their efforts to fix venue for thousands of claims it says is related to Imerys Talc America’s bankruptcy, maintaining that its attempt to move the cases is not a delay tactic and that “effectuates the sound policies that motivated Congress’s enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5).”
Plaintiffs with cases pending in the national multidistrict litigation docket for talcum powder claims have opposed Johnson & Johnson’s recent efforts to exclude general causation opinions of plaintiff experts, maintaining that the question at this juncture of the litigation is not whether the experts were right in their conclusions, but rather whether the experts were qualified to offer their opinions.
Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. have challenged a motion to exclude opinions of their molecular biologists proffered in the national talcum powder multidistrict litigation docket, maintaining that the plaintiffs have “misperceived” the nature of the expert testimony.