Valdez v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-cv-00873-BEN-DEB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | MANUEL VALDEZ, individually and is the successor-in-interest to IRMA VALDEZ, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant. |
ORDER: (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND REMAND TO STATE COURT; (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY; AND (3) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE [ECF NOS. 6, 7, AND 9]
Plaintiff MANUEL YALDEZ, individually and as the successor-in-interest to IRMA VALDEZ ("Plaintiff) brings this action against Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., a California corporation incorporated under the laws of New Jersey with its principal place of business in New Jersey ("Defendant" or "Johnson & Johnson"), and DOES 1 through 100 arising out of the death of Plaintiff s wife, which Plaintiff alleges was caused by using Defendant's Baby Powder. ECF No. 1 at 2, 4.
Before the Court are (1) Defendant's Motion Stay All Proceedings, ECF No. 6; (2) Plaintiffs Motion to (a) File a First Amended Complaint and (b) Remand Back to State Court, ECF No. 7; and (3) Plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion for Order Consolidating Hearing Dates, ECF No. 9.
The motions were submitted on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and Rule 78(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 12, 16. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court (1) GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Stay, ECF No. 6; (2) DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and Remand Case to Superior Court, ECF No. 7; (3) and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion for Order Consolidating Hearing Dates, ECF No. 9.
Plaintiff, a California citizen, alleges that on April 1, 2019, his wife, Irma Valdez ("Decedent"), died at the age of 47 with a form of vaginal cancer caused by years of using Defendant's Baby Powder as a feminine hygiene product. Complaint, ECF No. 1-2 ("Compl.") at 6, [1] ¶ 1, 7, ¶¶ 2-3.
In 2011, Decedent noticed an uncomfortable bump on her vaginal wall, which doctors later determined to be leiomyosarcoma, a rare type of cancer. Compl. at 10, ¶ 26. Plaintiff alleges that for decades, Defendant Johnson & Johnson knew the talc powder- the primary ingredient in its Baby Powder-contained asbestos, well-known carcinogen. Id. at 6, ¶ 1. Plaintiff pleads that Defendant's Baby Powder was a substantial factor in his wife's death. Id. at 10, ¶ 27.
According to Defendant, "[t]here are presently at least 26, 000 individual actions pending in federal courts across the country in which the plaintiffs allege that perineal use of cosmetic talc products manufactured and marketed by Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. caused them to suffer ovarian cancer." Defendant's Motion to Stay, ECF No. 6-1 ("Stay Mot.") at 2:23 -25. On October 4, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") issued a transfer order creating a multidistrict litigation proceeding related to this case: In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Mktg., Sales Practices and Prods. Liab. Litig., before Judge Wolfson in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "MDL") to coordinate pretrial proceedings in "actions [that] share common factual questions arising out of allegations that perineal use of Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products can cause ovarian or uterine cancer in women." Id., at 3:1-5.
On March 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant in the San Diego County Superior Court of California, alleging causes of action for (1) strict products liability; (2) negligence; and (3) fraud. See Compl. at 6; see also Manuel Valdez, individually and as the successor-in-interest to Irma Valdez v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, San Diego Superior Court No. 37-2021-00014175-CU-PO-CTL (the "State Action").
On April 1, 2021, the statute of limitations ran on Plaintiffs wrongful death claims. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand and Amend the Complaint, ECF No. 7 ("Remand Mot.") at 10:16; see also Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs Remand Mot., ECF No. 13 ("Remand Oppo.") at 6:15-16; Plaintiffs Reply in Support of Remand. Mot, ECF No. 15 ("Remand Reply") at 10:23-28. On April 7, 2021, Plaintiff served Defendant with the original complaint. Remand Oppo. at 6:17.
On May 6, 2021, Defendant removed the case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because more than $75, 000.00 is in controversy, and Plaintiff is from California while Defendant is a New Jersey citizen. ECF No. 1 at 2, 6-7.
On May 11, 2021, Defendant provided notice of this case to the JPML, stating that this case was similar to other cases pending in the MDL. See Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay, ECF No. 8 ("Stay Oppo.") at 3:5-9; see also Exhibit "A" to Stay Oppo., ECF No. 8-1 at 1-5; In re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2738, ECF No. 2599, Notice of Potential Tag-Along (providing notice of this matter to the JPML).
On May 13, 2021, Defendant also filed an Answer to the complaint. ECF No. 5. That same day, Defendant also filed its Motion to Stay All Proceedings. Motion, ECF No. 6 ("Stay Mot."). On June 1, 2021, Plaintiff opposed Defendant's Motion to Stay. See Stay Oppo." On June 7, 2021, Defendant replied. Reply, ECF No. 10 ("Stay Reply").
On May 14, 2021, the JPML issued a Conditional Transfer Order in response to Defendant's Notice of Related Case in the JPML, which transferred this case along with one other to the MDL court, where 30, 000 other cases involving similar allegations concerning talcum powders and gynecological cancers are pending. See Exhibit "B" to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay at ECF No. 8-2 at 1-3; see also Stay Oppo. at 3:10-17; Stay Reply at 2:5-8; Remand Oppo. at 5:15-17, 8:21-24.
On May 21, 2021, Plaintiff objected to the transfer order, and the JPML will hear Plaintiffs Opposition to the Conditional Transfer Order on July 29, 2021. See Exhibit "C" to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay at ECF No. 8-3 at 1-4; see also Stay Oppo. at 3:18-21; Stay Reply at 2:8-12; see also Notice, ECF No. 14. On May 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to (1) File a First Amended Complaint and (2) Remand Back to State Court. See Remand Mot. This Motion to Amend the Complaint seeks to add two parties as defendants in this case: (1) Food 4 Less of California, Inc., a California corporation from whom Ms. Valdez purchased Baby Power from 2000 through 2004, and (2) The Vons Companies, Inc., a Delaware corporation from whom Ms. Valdez purchased Baby Power after 2004 (collectively, the "Retail Defendants"). Id. at 6:1-6 (citing Proposed First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 6, 7, 28, 29). On June 11, 2021, Defendant opposed. See Remand Oppo. On June 21, 2021, Plaintiff replied. See Remand Reply.
On June 1, 2021, Plaintiff also filed an Ex Parte Motion to Consolidate Hearings, seeking "to combine the two scheduled motions hearing-one set for June 14th, the other June 28th-into one hearing held on June 28, 2021." Ex Parte, ECF No. 1 at 1:26-2:1 ("Ex Parte Appl."). On June 8, 2021, Defendant opposed the Ex Parte. Opposition, ECF No. 11 ("Ex Parte Oppo.").
A court's power to stay proceedings is incidental to the inherent power to control the disposition of its cases in the interests of efficiency and fairness to the court, counsel, and litigants. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). A stay may be granted pending the outcome of other legal proceedings related to the case in the interests of judicial economy. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cat, Ltd, 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979). Discretion to stay a case is appropriately exercised when the resolution of another matter will have a direct impact on the issues before the court, thereby substantially simplifying the issues presented. Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, a district court "must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55. "[I]f there is even a fair possibility that the stay ... will work damage to some one else, the stay may be inappropriate absent a showing by the moving party of hardship or inequity." Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, when "determining whether to stay proceedings, the Court considers the following factors: (1) judicial economy; (2) the moving party's hardship; and (3) potential prejudice to the non-moving party." Single Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (citing Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F.Supp. 1358, 1360 (CD. Cal. 1997)).
Once a responsive pleading is filed, a plaintiff can amend a complaint "only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." FED. R. Civ. P 15(a)(2). "The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Id.; see also Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (). "The power to grant leave to amend, however, is entrusted to the discretion of the district court, which determines the propriety of a motion to amend by ascertaining the presence of any of four...
To continue reading
Request your trial