Critical Mass: In Talc Trial, Who's Repping J&J After Judge Struck Lawyer's Closing? Viagra Judge Finds Plaintiffs' Experts Don't Hold Up. A 'Blow' Provision Blew Apart This Settlement.
After a New Jersey judge tossed the closing argument of its lawyer in a talc trial, Johnson & Johnson is back in court with a new legal team.
January 15, 2020 at 01:20 PM
6 minute read
Welcome to Critical Mass, Law.com's weekly briefing for class action and mass tort attorneys. After a New Jersey judge tossed the closing argument of its lawyer in a talc trial, Johnson & Johnson is back in court with a new legal team. More than 1,000 lawsuits over Viagra could die on the vine after the judge tossed the plaintiffs' experts. How Bristol-Myers used a "blow provision" to back out of a $55 million class action settlement.
Feel free to reach out to me with your input. You can email me at [email protected], or follow me on Twitter: @abronstadlaw.
|
After Judge's Rebuke, J&J Changes Talc Team
A talcum powder case in which a judge threw out the closing argument of Johnson & Johnson's lawyer last year was back before jurors in New Jersey this week for a much less dramatic punitive damages phase. Jurors on Sept. 11 had awarded $37.3 million to four plaintiffs who alleged Johnson & Johnson's baby powder caused them to get mesothelioma. Days before, Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Ana Viscomi chastised Diane Sullivan (Weil Gotshal) for "attacking the profession" by calling plaintiffs' lawyers "sinister" during her closing argument.
This time, Sullivan wasn't there. Allison Brown (Skadden) and Morton Dubin (Orrick), both veterans of talcum powder trials, headed Johnson & Johnson's new team in the punitive damages phrase before a new jury. Chris Panatier (Simon Greenstone Panatier) handled both phases for the plaintiffs.
My colleague Charles Toutant was at the opening statements on Tuesday. He said there was only one objection:
"Plaintiff's lawyer Chris Panatier, pointing out that the plaintiffs were already compensated, said 'we are not trying to say "compensate them." This stage is about punishment and deterrence.' Later, Panatier warned the jury that lawyers for J&J 'will seek to cast doubt on the jury. They aren't allowed to do that.' When J&J lawyer Allison Brown had her turn, she told jurors that the prior jury had not decided that the company 'intentionally or deliberately harmed the plaintiffs,' drawing an objection from Panatier, who said 'that's not the standard.' The trial judge, Ana Viscomi, called the lawyers into a sidebar, and afterwards said only, 'Please continue, Ms. Brown."'
|
Judge Strikes Experts, Eviscerating Viagra Lawsuits
A federal judge struck all the plaintiffs' general causation experts in more than 1,000 lawsuits alleging that taking Viagra caused the progression of melanoma.
Why it matters: It's the latest ruling to strike plaintiffs' experts in multidistrict litigation involving product liability (think Mirena, Zoloft and Lipitor). In his Monday order, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg concluded that the experts relied on studies that found an increased risk, but "not a strong association."
Seeborg, who is in the Northern District of California, had some help from his colleague, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, who in 2018 refused to toss plaintiffs' general causation experts in the multidistrict litigation alleging the herbicide Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Seeborg cited Chhabria's decision liberally in his opinion, which found that, unlike Roundup, the experts in the Viagra cases cited nothing outside the litigation to support their conclusions.
Kudos go to: Loren Brown (DLA Piper) and Joseph Petrosinelli (Williams & Connolly), attorneys for Viagra producer Pfizer Inc., and Michael Imbroscio (Covington & Burling) for Eli Lilly & Co., which sells Cialis. Lead plaintiffs' attorneys were Ernest Cory (Cory Watson), Munir Meghjee (Robins Kaplan) and Jennifer Liakos (Napoli Shkolnik).
|
A Settlement Unravels After Class Members Opt Out
It's not uncommon for class action settlements to include a provision that allows defendants to back out if a certain number of class members opt out of the deal. But most defendants don't actually back out—except, that is, in a $55 million antitrust settlement involving cancer treatment drugs.
On Dec. 23, defendant Celgene, now owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, rescinded the settlement after 80 of the 9,000 class members opted out of the deal. Both sides are due back in court next month.
In a statement, Bristol-Myers said it "exercised its right to terminate the settlement in light of the fact that numerous large third party payors who were members of the settlement class refused to release their potential claims and participate in the settlement." It's not clear why, but, in a Nov. 27 letter to the judge, Matthew Stockwell (Pillsbury Winthrop), said his clients, who were "potential opt-out parties," had "serious concerns" that the "opt out procedure is overly formalistic and burdensome."
I caught up with lead plaintiffs' counsel Melinda Coolidge (Hausfeld), who told me:
"It's relatively rare that a 'blow' provision is even triggered, but I've been in other cases before where it was, and the defendant still decided not to rescind the settlement agreement."
Here's what else is happening:
On the Hunt: Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter, on the heels of getting a $475 million judgment against Johnson & Johnson over the opioid crisis, has filed a new lawsuit against three pharmaceutical distributors: AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., McKesson Corp. and Cardinal Health Inc. Unlike the case against Johnson & Johnson (now on appeal), Hunter's new suit does not allege public nuisance claims or seek abatement costs. Hunter already has racked up $363 million in settlements with Purdue Pharma, Teva Pharmaceuticals and, in a deal announced last week, Endo Pharmaceuticals.
Supreme Mesh: Benjamin Anderson (Anderson Law Offices) took his fee fight over $7.2 million in the pelvic mesh litigation to the U.S. Supreme Court, filing a Dec. 18 petition to review the $550 million in common benefit fees awarded last year. He is challenging what he called an unprecedented appellate waiver imposed on plaintiffs' firms, without their knowledge, that challenged fees in their mesh cases. On Jan. 9, the Supreme Court denied a separate application Anderson filed to stay disbursement of the mesh fees pending review of his petition.
Off Course: Ride-sharing firm Lyft Inc. is fighting a move by plaintiffs' attorneys in California to coordinate more than 20 lawsuits alleging that its drivers sexually assaulted passengers. Lyft attorney Beth Stewart (Williams & Connolly) was in court this month opposing the plaintiffs' petition to coordinate the cases under California's Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings. Plaintiffs' attorneys William Levin (Levin Simes Abrams) and Brooks Cutter (Cutter Law) argued in favor of coordination.
Thanks for reading Critical Mass! I'll be back next week.
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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Zero-Dollar Verdict: Which of Florida's Largest Firms Lost?
- 2Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
- 3SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
- 4Judiciary Law §487 in 2024
- 5Polsinelli's Revenue and Profits Surge Amid Partner De-Equitizations, Retirements
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