Welcome to Critical Mass, Law.com's weekly briefing on class actions and mass torts. I'm Amanda Bronstad in Los Angeles. Read on for plaintiffs lawyers' predictions on possible lawsuits from Pennsylvania's priest scandal. Also, Roundup lawsuits are at the ready, and Johnson & Johnson cites the Accutane ruling in its long-awaited New Jersey talc appeal.

Send your feedback to [email protected], or find me on Twitter: @abronstadlaw.

 

Will Pennsylvania Priest Victims Sue?

 

A grand jury in a Pennsylvania Attorney General investigation released a scathing report on Tuesday outlining decades of sexual abuse by more than 300 priests in six Roman Catholic dioceses across Pennsylvania. Here's NPR's coverage; Law.com has the redacted report here.

The report estimates there could be more than 1,000 victims. But despite the widespread abuse, plaintiffs lawyers disagree over whether there could be civil suits. That's according to this story by my colleague, Max Mitchell.

Some lawyers note the report's findings of a cover-up could help victims bring lawsuits. Others say the state statute of limitations would drastically limit the number of viable claims. Under the statute, victims must sue by age 30, but the report details incidents dating back to the 1940s. The report included recommendations that the state legislature create a “civil window” for victims to bring such claims.

Max, who's been covering the fight over the unsealing of the report, said lawyers were skeptical about such reform:

“Attorneys said there's pretty much no chance any reform would go through unless there's a big change in the legislature.”

 

Monsanto Verdict Aftermath

 

In the first trial over whether Monsanto's Roundup weed killer caused a man's cancer, plaintiff's attorney R. Brent Wisner (Baum Hedlund) told the jury they could “change the world” with their verdict.

The jury listened. Its $289 million verdict on Aug. 10 got attention across the globe. Here's a round-up of Roundup news:

But Monsanto's going to appeal. Its arguments could include “intentional and improper statements” that plaintiffs attorneys made during trial. Among the target statements: comparing Monsanto to Big Tobacco, telling the jury there was champagne waiting on ice at a Monsanto boardroom and—oh, yeah inviting jurors to “change the world” with their verdict.

 

New Ammo in J&J Talc Defense

 

In 2016, a New Jersey judge's ruling armed Johnson & Johnson in its nationwide fight challenging the science behind cases alleging its baby powder caused ovarian cancer. The judge struck two plaintiff's experts in a pair of talcum powder cases because of their “made-for-litigation” methods and tactics.

Fast forward to this month: In the plaintiffs' appeal, Johnson & Johnson (repped by Susan Sharko of Drinker Biddle & Reath) and Imerys (ripped by Mark Silver of Coughlin Duffy) cited a new weapon: The New Jersey Supreme Court's Aug. 1 decision in In re Accutane, which established an even stricter standard for scientific evidence allowed at trial. Here's my story on how Johnson & Johnson cites that ruling in an Aug. 9 letter brief before the New Jersey Appellate Division.

The plaintiffs haven't responded yet. But in emails, they told me that Accutane wouldn't affect their appeal because they have more science on their side in the talc cases. Richard Golomb (Golomb & Honik) went so far as to say the ruling “is actually helpful to the plaintiffs in talc.”

Who Got the Work?

 

The sixth trial alleging Johnson & Johnson's baby powder caused mesothelioma is due to start in Los Angeles this month. Jury selection has begun, and opening statements are expected on Monday, in Carolyn Weirick v. Brenntag North America. The plaintiff, Carolyn Weirick, claims she was exposed to asbestos through her use of Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and Chanel No. 5. Simon Greenstone Panatier represents the plaintiff. Johnson & Johnson's team includes Alexander Calfo and Julia Romano at King & Spalding in Los Angeles and Orrick's Christopher Vejnoska and Warrington Parker in San Francisco. Dentons partner Bradford DeJardin represents Imerys, and Chanel, a third defendant, is represented by Manning, Gross & Massenburg.

And here's more news you should know …

➤ Big Apple: The state of New York finally brought its own lawsuit over the opioid epidemic. Many New York counties had already sued, with rulings in the past few months refusing to dismiss their cases against opioid manufacturers and distributors. The state of New York's case, announced by Attorney General Barbara Underwood, was brought against Purdue Pharma in Suffolk County Supreme Court.

➤ New Nassar Victims: More victims of disgraced Michigan State University sports doctor Larry Nassar have filed lawsuits, even after the $500 million settlement announced in May. According to a press release put out by a consortium of 18 law firms, including Pitt McGehee and Andrus Wagstaff, the women are not among the 333 who were part of the settlement, which carved out $75 million for “new victims.” Check out the list of law firms on the consortium's website.

➤ Trust Me: Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a settlement in which $380 million went to cy pres—or, as dissenting Judge Janice Rogers Brown called it, a “slush fund.” Now, after the U.S. Supreme Court denied review, those funds are on their way, according to this press release by Cohen Milstein. The case, Keepseagle v. Perdue, had accused the U.S. Department of Agriculture of discriminating against Native American farmers and ranchers when processing loan applications. After some additional claims were made, $38 million will end up going to nonprofits serving Native Americans in agriculture, and $266 million to a trust that would fund programs over the next 20 years. That trust, said attorney Joseph Sellers, “could turn out to be one of the most lasting legacies of this case because it will create the largest non-profit institution to serve Native Americans in the history of this country.”