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.
June 12, 2019 at 03:34 PM
3 minute read
A California jury has awarded $12 million to a woman diagnosed in 2018 with mesothelioma after using talc-based cosmetic products made by Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive Co.
The Alameda County Superior Court jury found that both Colgate-Palmolive and Johnson & Johnson failed to warn about known risks associated with their talcum powder products, which were substantial factors in plaintiff Patricia Schmitz's mesothelioma, according to Courtroom View Network's coverage of the trial.
Schmitz claimed in a lawsuit that she got mesothelioma, a deadly lung cancer tied to asbestos, after using Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products and Colgate-Palmolive's Cashmere Bouquet throughout her life. The trial began April 22.
“We will pursue an appeal because Johnson's baby powder does not contain asbestos or cause cancer, as supported by decades of independent clinical evidence,” wrote Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Kimberly Montagnino. “There were serious procedural and evidentiary errors in the proceeding that required us to move for mistrial on multiple occasions and we believe provide strong grounds for appeal.”
Johnson & Johnson filed a motion for mistrial after the trial began, based on the judge's rulings, and Colgate-Palmolive filed a motion for nonsuit.
“This trial suffered from numerous significant legal and evidentiary errors that we believe unfairly prejudiced the defense,” wrote Colgate-Palmolive spokesman Tom DiPiazza. “Indeed, in cases where the law has been applied properly and all the evidence has been presented, courts and juries around the country, including in California, have found in favor of Colgate, concluding that Colgate's Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder product, which Colgate has not sold in the United States since 1995, did not contain asbestos or cause mesothelioma.”
The verdict award was for compensatory damages. Jurors found that Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive each were 40% at fault, with the remaining 20% against Avon, which was not a defendant at trial. The jury, which deliberated for four days and raised several questions about the verdict form, ended up at an impasse on whether Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive acted with malice, warranting punitive damages.
In March, another jury in Alameda County Superior Court hit Johnson & Johnson with a $29 million talc verdict involving Teresa Leavitt, diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2017 after using its baby powder, and her husband Dean McElroy.
The same plaintiffs lawyers, Joe Satterley and Steven Kazan, of Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood, who won that verdict, in 2018 secured a $117 million verdict in New Jersey along with firm colleague Denyse Clancy and Moshe Maimon of Levy Konigsberg in New York.
Satterley did not respond to a request for comment.
This time, his team was up against Alexander Calfo, a partner at King & Spalding in Los Angeles, and Michael Battle of Barnes & Thornburg in Washington, D.C., for Johnson & Johnson. Foley & Mansfield partners Gary Sharp in Walnut Creek, California; Peter Mularczyk, in Los Angeles; and Andrew Sharp, in Detroit, represented Colgate-Palmolive.
The trial was contentious on both sides. Plaintiffs attorneys sought $1,000 in contempt sanctions against Calfo for violating a pretrial order that banned him from attacking Schmitz's lawyers.
“Mr. Calfo not only accused plaintiff's lawyers of manufacturing a claim, but put before the jury a diagram placing the plaintiff's lawyers at the center of a web of deception,” wrote Clancy in a June 5 motion. “This is an affront to the bar, an affront to the legal system, and an affront to this court.”
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Davis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
- 2Construction Fall Nets $2.3 Million Settlement After Trial Begins
- 3By the Numbers: The 2024 LTN Law Firm Tech Survey
- 4Can The Threat of a Bar Complaint Be a Settlement Tool?
- 5Sentencing Commission Addresses Inconsistent Definitions of “Loss”
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