Preview Newsletter

Talc 6/16

    Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel

    US Coverage

  1. Talcum Powder Defendants Ask Court to Deny Plaintiff Motion to Stay Proceedings

    Jun 15, 2016 | Harris Martin Publishing

    Defendants that recently removed a multi-plaintiff talcum powder lawsuit to federal court have opposed recent plaintiff efforts to stay the proceedings, arguing that the plaintiffs do not need to conduct jurisdictional discovery since the underlying claims are “wholly detached from Missouri.”
  2. Johnson & Johnson Defendants Oppose Motion to Remand; Maintain State Court Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction over Majority of Plaintiffs

    Jun 15, 2016 | Harris Martin Publishing

    The Johnson & Johnson defendants named in a multi-plaintiff talcum powder lawsuit have opposed a recent motion to remand, saying that the state court does not have personal jurisdiction over claims of 77 of the 80 named plaintiffs.
  3. New Talc-Based Powder Exposure Suit Filed in Pennsylvania Federal Court

    Jun 15, 2016 | Harris Martin Publishing

    A talc-based powder exposure suit has been filed in Pennsylvania federal court on behalf of a woman who allegedly developed ovarian cancer as a result of exposure to talc in Baby Powder, resulting in her death at age 58.
  4. Talcum Powder Defendants Say Court Erred When Not Addressing Question of Whether Plaintiffs Were Forum Shopping

    Jun 15, 2016 | Harris Martin Publishing

    The defendants involved in the appeal of an order granting a plaintiff’s motion to dismiss a talc-based powder exposure suit assert that the District Court erred when it did not addressed the question of whether the plaintiffs were engaging in forum shopping.

    Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel

    US Coverage

  1. Talcum Powder Defendants Ask Court to Deny Plaintiff Motion to Stay Proceedings

    Jun 15, 2016 | Harris Martin Publishing

    Defendants that recently removed a multi-plaintiff talcum powder lawsuit to federal court have opposed recent plaintiff efforts to stay the proceedings, arguing that the plaintiffs do not need to conduct jurisdictional discovery since the underlying claims are “wholly detached from Missouri.”

    In the June 13 opposition brief filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies argued that “jurisdictional discovery is completely irrelevant and should be denied.”

    The underlying suit was filed by 80 plaintiffs, all of whom alleged that they developed ovarian cancer as ...

    Subscription required, for full text:  http://harrismartin.com/article/20952/talcum-powder-defendants-ask-court-to-deny-plaintiff-motion-to-stay-proceedings/

    Return to headline | Return to top

  2. Johnson & Johnson Defendants Oppose Motion to Remand; Maintain State Court Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction over Majority of Plaintiffs

    Jun 15, 2016 | Harris Martin Publishing

    The Johnson & Johnson defendants named in a multi-plaintiff talcum powder lawsuit have opposed a recent motion to remand, saying that the state court does not have personal jurisdiction over claims of 77 of the 80 named plaintiffs.

    In the June 13 opposition brief filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the defendants maintained its position that the federal court should dismiss the claims of the non-Missouri plaintiffs and retain diversity jurisdiction over the claims of the remaining in-state plaintiffs.

    The underlying suit was filed by 80 plaintiffs, all of whom alleged ...

    Subscription required, for full text: http://harrismartin.com/article/20950/johnson-johnson-defendants-oppose-motion-to-remand-maintain-state-court-doesnt-have-jurisdiction-over-majority-of-plaintiffs/

    Return to headline | Return to top

  3. New Talc-Based Powder Exposure Suit Filed in Pennsylvania Federal Court

    Jun 15, 2016 | Harris Martin Publishing

    A talc-based powder exposure suit has been filed in Pennsylvania federal court on behalf of a woman who allegedly developed ovarian cancer as a result of exposure to talc in Baby Powder, resulting in her death at age 58.

    In the June 9 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the plaintiff says she is entitled to punitive damages since the defendants acted with “wanton … and conscious disregard of the rights of others.”

    “Defendants misled both the medical community and the public at large, including Maureen Broderick Milliken, deceased, by making ...

    Subscription required, for full text: http://harrismartin.com/article/20954/new-talc-based-powder-exposure-suit-filed-in-pennsylvania-federal-court/

    Return to headline | Return to top

  4. Talcum Powder Defendants Say Court Erred When Not Addressing Question of Whether Plaintiffs Were Forum Shopping

    Jun 15, 2016 | Harris Martin Publishing

    The defendants involved in the appeal of an order granting a plaintiff’s motion to dismiss a talc-based powder exposure suit assert that the District Court erred when it did not addressed the question of whether the plaintiffs were engaging in forum shopping.

    In their June 13 appellants’ brief filed in the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs engaged in improper forum shopping and that such tactics are not legally valid.

    Michael Blaes filed the lawsuit, contending that his wife’s ovarian cancer was caused by her use of Johnson & Johnson’s Baby ..

    http://harrismartin.com/article/20953/talcum-powder-defendants-say-court-erred-when-not-addressing-question-of-whether-plaintiffs-were-forum-shopping/

    Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested