Calif. Judge Dismisses Prop 65 Case Over Baby Powder Despite J&J's Objections
U.S. District Judge George Wu of the Central District of California said he would dismiss the case, despite Johnson & Johnson's request not to, but ordered plaintiffs lawyers at the Lanier Law Firm to pay fees and costs.
July 29, 2019 at 03:11 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A federal judge tentatively dismissed a talcum powder lawsuit despite Johnson & Johnson's pleas not to toss the case.
At a hearing Monday, U.S. District Judge George Wu of the Central District of California said he would dismiss the case, brought under California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly referred to as Proposition 65. Johnson & Johnson had fought the move, accusing plaintiffs lawyer Mark Lanier, of the Lanier Law Firm in Houston, of purposely stalling the case, which had been set for trial for Oct. 15.
“To be brief, the court sees no 'plain legal prejudice' that defendants would suffer as a result of a dismissal, notwithstanding defendants' argument to that effect,” Wu wrote in a tentative order issued ahead of Monday's hearing.
But he granted attorney fees and costs to Johnson & Johnson.
“Given the length of this case and amount of work defendants have understandably put into it, to allow plaintiffs to dismiss the case without prejudice at this stage would otherwise be unjust,” he wrote. “The only question would be the appropriate amount.”
He set a status conference for Aug. 19.
Wu's dismissal would allow Lanier to refile the case.
“Justice can't be rushed,” Lanier said in an emailed statement after the hearing. “We need the right parties and we will get the right result. J&J will get their day in court.”
Johnson & Johnson lawyer Peter Bicks, a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe's New York office, said in an emailed statement: “Johnson and Johnson was looking forward to having the court rule that Johnson & Johnson baby powder is safe and does not require a cancer warning as the FDA has twice decided. Plaintiffs dropped their case to avoid a ruling on the merits and Johnson & Johnson is gratified that the court ordered plaintiffs to pay our legal fees.”
The case is separate from the thousands of lawsuits brought by people alleging they got ovarian cancer or mesothelioma from a lifetime of using Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products. Juries, including those in California, have hit Johnson & Johnson with several verdicts, but the company also has won some. Last year, a jury in St. Louis awarded $4.7 billion to 22 women, represented by Lanier, who alleged they got ovarian cancer from using Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products.
Prop 65 requires businesses to provide a “clear and reasonable warning” before exposing consumers to carcinogens and other toxins, as defined in California.
Lanier's Prop 65 suit, originally filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, sought to slap Prop 65 labels on Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and Shower to Shower products, plus obtain restitution and civil penalties of $2,500 per day for each violation.
Last month, Lanier's firm filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case, citing newly discovered evidence and a need to add another defendant, Claire's, a retailer whose cosmetic products were found by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March to contain asbestos. Months earlier, his firm had asked to add another defendant, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC, to the case.
Johnson & Johnson, however, countered that plaintiffs simply wanted to avoid “an inevitable adverse ruling on the merits.” The company raised questions about Lanier's expert, who also has testified in personal injury cases, and noted that four out of the five plaintiffs who sat for depositions did not even know they were parties in a lawsuit. Some had never heard of Prop 65.
In court, Elyse Echtman, another New York partner at Orrick representing Johnson & Johnson, said granting dismissal would give the Lanier Law Firm a chance to “redo their expert reports” and “find someone else as a figurehead.”
“This case has really been driven by the lawyers,” she told the judge. Her comment evoked a response from Michael Akselrud, an associate at the Lanier Law Firm in Los Angeles, saying he disagreed with her assessment of the case.
Wu said he would not dismiss the case until the parties agreed to the amount of fees and costs. He also cautioned Johnson & Johnson's lawyers not to inflate their request for compensation.
“Defendants should be clear, however, the court will take a skeptical view of any signs of over-lawyering that is sometimes the case for large law firms engaging in big-ticket litigation,” he wrote in his tentative ruling.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrozen-Potato Producers Face Profiteering Allegations in Surge of Antitrust Class Actions
3 minute readState Appellate Court Upholds $149M Punitive Damages Award Against Hyatt
4 minute readThe Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute read'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250