• Lanzo v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co.

    Publication Date: 2021-05-10
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Consumer Products | Manufacturing | Mining and Resources
    Court: Appellate Division
    Judge: Judge Yannotti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Roman Martinez (Latham & Watkins LLP) of the New York and District of Columbia bars, admitted pro hac vice (Chasan, Lamparello, Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC, Roman Martinez, and Elana Nightingale Dawson (Latham & Watkins LLP) of the Illinois and District of Columbia bars, admitted pro hac vice, attorneys; Cindy Nan Vogelman, Roman Martinez and Elana Nightingale Dawson, on the briefs); E. Joshua Rosenkranz (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice (McCarter & English LLP, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Robert M. Loeb (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP) of the District of Columbia bar, admitted pro hac vice, Paul David Meyer (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP) of the California bar , admitted pro hac vice, and Naomi J. Scotten (Orrick, Herrington & E. Joshua Rosenkranz (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice (McCarter & English LLP, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Robert M. Loeb (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP) of the District of Columbia bar, admitted pro hac vice, Paul David Meyer (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP) of the California bar , admitted pro hac vice, and Naomi J. Scotten (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP) of the New York, Virginia, and District of Columbia bars, admitted pro hac vice, attorneys; John C. Garde, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Robert M. Loeb, Paul David Meyer, Naomi J. Scotten, and Evan M. Rose, on the briefs)
    for defendant: Denyse Clancy (Kazan McClain Satterley & Greenwood) of the California bar, admitted pro hac vice (Levy Konigsberg LLP, and Denyse Clancy, attorneys; Moshe Maimon and Denyse Clancy, on the briefs)

    Case Number: A-5711-17; A-5717-17

    Products Liability Reversed Where Trial Court Admitted Expert Testimony Based on Data and Theories Not Generally Accepted by Scientific Community

  • June 12, 2019 | The Recorder

    California Jury Awards $12M in Talcum Powder Case Against J&J, Colgate-Palmolive

    Both Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive said they planned to appeal, citing numerous procedural and evidentiary errors.

    1 minute read

  • June 12, 2019 | Litigation Daily

    California Jury Awards $12M in Talc Case Against J&J, Colgate-Palmolive

    Both Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive said they planned to appeal, citing numerous procedural and evidentiary errors.

    1 minute read

  • January 7, 2019 | Litigation Daily

    J&J Talc Trial Kicks Off in a New Calif. Venue

    Veteran talc lawyers on both sides gave opening statements on Monday in Alameda County Superior Court.

    1 minute read

  • January 7, 2019 | The Recorder

    J&J Talc Trial Opens This Week in a New Calif. Venue

    Veteran talc lawyers on both sides gave opening statements on Monday in Alameda County Superior Court.

    1 minute read

  • April 13, 2018 | Litigation Daily

    Litigators of the Week: Beating J&J on its Own Turf

    A trio of plaintiffs lawyers overcame Johnson & Johnson's home court advantage in the first successful case linking Johnson's Baby Powder and mesothelioma.

    1 minute read

  • April 6, 2018 | New Jersey Law Journal

    Jurors in NJ Talc Trial Rejected J&J's Bid to Tarnish Plaintiffs' Scientific Evidence

    In the nation's first trial where a jury linked Johnson & Johnson's talc products to mesothelioma, the company's efforts to discredit the plaintiffs' evidence simply fell flat.

    1 minute read

  • Johnson v. United States Steel Corporation

    Publication Date: 2015-09-02
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2015-09-01
    Court: C.A. 1st
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Counsel for Plaintiffs and Appellants: KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD, Ted W. Pelletier and Michael T. Stewart
    for defendant: Counsel for Defendant and Respondent: HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Barry J. Thompson, David W. Skaar, and Catherine E. Stetson, THE CAIRONE LAW FIRM PLLC, Matt Cairone

    Case Number: No. A142485

    Cite as 14 C.D.O.S. 9922 DAVID JOHNSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. UNITED STAT

  • Scott v. Ford Motor Company

    Publication Date: 2014-03-27
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2014-03-26
    Court: C.A. 1st
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kazan, McClain, Satterley, Lyons, Greenwood & Oberman, Joseph D. Satterley, Dianna Lyons, Justin A. Bosl, Ted W. Pelletier, and Michael T. Stewart for Plaintiffs and Appellants Patrick Scott and Sharon Scott.
    for defendant: Nixon Peabody, Ronald Frank Lopez, David A. Pereda, Ross M. Petty; Munger, Tolles & Olson, Daniel P. Collins, Nicholas C. Soltman; Dykema Gossett, and Eric C. Tew for Defendant and Appellant Ford Motor Company. The Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., Hugh F. Young, Jr.; Snell & Wilmer and Mary-Christine Sungaila as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant Ford Motor Company.

    Case Number: No. A137975

    Cite as 14 C.D.O.S. 3353 PATRICK SCOTT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR