South Florida Court Dismisses Suit Against Talc Supplier for Johnson & Johnson
Florida's Fourth DCA held it had no jurisdiction over defendant Imerys Talc America Inc., a Delaware-based corporation with primary operations in California.
December 21, 2018 at 12:33 PM
4 minute read
A South Florida appellate court has dismissed claims against a Delaware company responsible for mining and providing talc to pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson.
A divided Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Imerys Talc America Inc. in an opinion issued Wednesday. Imerys had been named alongside Johnson & Johnson companies and Publix Super Markets Inc. in a suit filed by Judith Ricketts in Broward County. The plaintiff, like many other women across the United States, accused the defendants of distributing and selling products — Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and other talc-based items — while being aware of the severe health risks, including a causation link to ovarian cancer, they might pose to customers.
Ricketts alleged she contracted ovarian cancer in 2013 as a result of her long-term use of Johnson & Johnson's baby powder.
The appeals court's majority opinion found that Ricketts' claims could not be tried in Florida courts as ”Imerys is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida.”
“Imerys is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. Imerys did not have contacts with Florida, either generally or specifically related to the actions leading to the complaint,” the opinion held. “We reverse the circuit court's order and remand with instructions to dismiss the cause of action against Imerys for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
Read the opinion:
The court's ruling contained a lone dissent by Judge Carole Taylor. Taylor wrote that the lower court's ruling denying Imerys' motion to dismiss Ricketts' product liability suit “is supported by the undisputed jurisdictional allegations in the complaint and by governing Florida case law.”
“Because the plaintiff's undisputed allegations establish that Imerys placed its talc into the stream of commerce over a period of decades with the knowledge and intention that it would be sold in Florida as the main ingredient in Johnson & Johnson's widely-available baby powder, Imerys had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida in order to satisfy due process,” the judge wrote. She added that “because the United States Supreme Court has not yet articulated a clear standard for stream-of-commerce cases,” it was up to the court to abide by precedent set by the Florida Supreme Court.
“The applicable standard, therefore, is that Florida may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident manufacturer who serves Florida's market by 'continuous and systematic activity indirectly through others,' notwithstanding the manufacturer's “ 'lack of direct presence and activity within the borders of Florida,' ” she wrote, citing the state Supreme Court's ruling in Ford Motor v. Atwood Vacuum Mach. In Taylor's interpretation, the 1981 case held that manufacturers who provide products for sale in Florida, even through third-party vendors, are “subject to the jurisdiction of Florida courts.”
David Gersten, a retired appellate judge who served as Imerys' counsel, said, “We are pleased that the court issued a well-reasoned and carefully thought out opinion which followed controlling precedent,” in a statement to the Daily Business Review.
Ricketts' appellate attorney, David Sales, declined to provide comment pending review of the order with his client and co-counsel. The other members of Rickett's legal team, Todd Falzone and Karina Rodrigues of the Fort Lauderdale law firm of Kelly Uustal, did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
The court's order was delivered the same day a Missouri court declined to overturn a nearly $4.7 billion jury verdict awarded to other women who claimed to have contracted ovarian cancer from Johnson & Johnson's talc products.
Related stories:
Plaintiffs Lawyers Fighting to Keep Talc Cases Out of MDL, In State Courts
In J&J's Backyard, Attorneys Paint Contrasting Pictures of Talc's Alleged Link to Mesothelioma
St. Louis Jury Issues $4.7 Billion Verdict After Trial Linking Talc to 22 Cancer Cases
Plaintiffs Lawyers Fight to Keep $4.7B Talc Verdict, Citing J&J's 'Perfect Storm' of Misconduct
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
© 2025 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 All2,000 Docket Entries: Complex South Florida Dispute Sets Precedent
Second DCA Greenlights USF Class Certification on COVID-19 College Tuition Refunds
3 minute readU.S. Eleventh Circuit Remands Helms-Burton Trafficking Case Involving Confiscated Cuban Port
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Public Notices/Calendars
- 2Wednesday Newspaper
- 3Decision of the Day: Qui Tam Relators Do Not Plausibly Claim Firm Avoided Tax Obligations Through Visa Applications, Circuit Finds
- 4Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-116
- 5Big Law Firms Sheppard Mullin, Morgan Lewis and Baker Botts Add Partners in Houston
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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