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
Issue #02, May 2016
Defendants named in a talc-based powder exposure suit have attacked claims of strict liability failure to warn and negligence, breach of express warranties, civil conspiracy and acting in concert and gross negligence, saying that those claims fall outside of Louisiana’s Products Liability Act.
A Louisiana federal court has dismissed Rio Tinto Minerals Inc. from a talc-based powder exposure lawsuit with prejudice, granting a motion filed by the plaintiff, in which she indicated that the defendant had not mined or manufactured anything.
Johnson & Johnson Defendants Remove Talc-Based Powder Exposure Suit, Asks Court to Dismiss Non-Missouri Plaintiffs
The Johnson & Johnson companies named in a multi-plaintiff talc-based powder exposure lawsuit have removed the complaint to federal court, saying that the court should first dismiss the non-Missouri residents from the suit, thereby creating complete diversity.
A multi-plaintiff lawsuit has been filed in California state court, with the plaintiffs all alleging that they developed ovarian cancer as a result of exposure to talc-based powder products manufactured by Johnson & Johnson.
A plaintiff who recently filed a talc-based powder exposure lawsuit in California state court has included Sav-On Drugs Stores Inc., and Rite-Aid Corp. as defendants in the complaint, according to court documents.
A plaintiff with talc-based powder exposure claims pending in California state court has recently amended the lawsuit to include Imerys Talc, according to recent court documents.
A plaintiff asserting talc-based powder exposure claims in a Maryland federal court has backed her fraud and conspiracy claims, maintaining that the defendants actively concealed knowledge from the consumers of its products.
The Missouri court that oversaw a recent talc-based powder trial that ended in a $55 million verdict has entered judgment in the matter, noting that the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs on negligence and failure-to-warn claims, but rejected the plaintiffs’ conspiracy cause of action.
Plaintiffs with talc-based powder claims pending in New Jersey federal court have backed their original efforts to test tissue samples, saying that “the testing of the small amount of tissue in the plaintiff’s possession is reasonable, necessary and relevant” to the underlying case.
Imerys Talc America Co. has opposed a talc-based powder plaintiff’s request to perform destructive testing on tissue samples, saying that allowing such testing would be prejudicial and unacceptable.