Plaintiffs Ask Calif. Supreme Court to Reinstate $417M Talc Verdict
The petition, filed Aug. 9, seeks to reverse a July 9 ruling by California's Second District Court of Appeal that lawyers have cited in other talcum powder cases and in post-trial motions involving a $2 billion Roundup verdict.
August 12, 2019 at 07:32 PM
4 minute read
Plaintiffs lawyers who lost a California appeals court decision affirming dismissal of a $417 million talcum powder verdict have petitioned the California Supreme Court to review the case.
In a brief filed Aug. 9, attorney Mark Robinson sought to reverse last month’s decision by the Second District Court of Appeal, which lawyers in the multidistrict litigation in New Jersey over Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder cited in briefings ahead of a hearing on expert evidence. Monsanto Co. also unsuccessfully relied upon the ruling in motions hoping to overturn a $2 billion Roundup verdict.
Robinson wrote that the July 9 ruling, which has “significant consequences for many products liability actions,” was inconsistent with the California Supreme Court’s 2017 holding in T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals.
“I have no doubt we’ll win that issue, that we raised, that Novartis applies here, and the court of appeals was wrong,” said Robinson, of Robinson Calcagnie Inc. in Newport Beach, California.
The argument is key to unraveling the appeals court decision because it found no liability as to Johnson & Johnson, which stopped selling the product after 1967. In a key finding for the plaintiffs, however, the appeals court concluded “substantial evidence” existed that Johnson & Johnson’s subsidiary, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., “breached a duty to warn of the risks of ovarian cancer from genital talc use.”
In Novartis, the Supreme Court found the original manufacturer of a brand-name pharmaceutical was liable for failing to warn about the generic drug equivalent that followed.
By limiting liability to Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., the Second District Court of Appeal adopted a “narrow, restrictive and incorrect” view of Novartis as applying only to pharmaceuticals, the plaintiffs’ brief says.
“There are all sorts of products in California that have hazards and risks, and, frankly, the laws that apply to them, product defect or negligent failure to warn, go across the board on all types of products,” Robinson said. “It’s not just pharmaceutical products.”
The appeals court also upheld dismissal of punitive damages.
“We are pleased with the California appellate court’s review of the case and that they agreed with [Los Angeles Superior Court] Judge [Maren] Nelson’s finding that punitive damages should not have been awarded,” wrote Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Kimberly Montagnino. “They also found that ‘it was also undisputed that there has not been direct, conclusive evidence establishing genital talc use causes ovarian cancer.’ We look forward to presenting our view that talc does not cause ovarian cancer to the California Supreme Court.”
The case, brought by Eva Echeverria, landed one of the largest talcum powder verdicts in the country in 2017. The verdict included $70 million in non-economic damages and $347 million in punitive damages.
After the verdict, Los Angeles Superior Court’s Nelson granted Johnson & Johnson’s motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding “ongoing debate in the scientific and medical community” over whether talc caused ovarian cancer, particularly in the case of Echeverria, who died a month after the verdict.
The Second District Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, agreed with Nelson except as to Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.’s liability.
Under Novartis, that holding should have extended to Johnson & Johnson, which remained heavily involved in the product’s warnings, Robinson said.
“They stayed involved with the decision not to give warnings out to the women, from ’67 to today,” he said. “They still haven’t warned.”
In his brief, Robinson also argued that the appeals court used the wrong standard of review in evaluating punitive damages. At the very least, Robinson said, the judge should have reduced but not eliminated them. “If, in fact, they decide in our favor, we get punitive damages back,” he said.
The appeals court also gave too much weight to Nelson’s ruling, given that she based her rulings on “errors of law and unsubstantiated or mistaken assumptions of fact,” the brief says.
“The opinion therefore goes too far and grants unbridled deference to trial courts to overturn verdicts, even when they are wrong on the law and wrong on the facts,” the brief says.
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 All'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
3 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Trending Stories
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