Fuqua v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Civil Action No. 11–6043 (FLW).
| Court | United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey |
| Writing for the Court | WOLFSON |
| Citation | 926 F.Supp.2d 538 |
| Parties | Cynthia FUQUA as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Annie R. Fuqua, Plaintiff, v. BRISTOL–MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Sharon Gibson as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Eddie Gibson, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Deloris Page as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Chester T. Page, Sr., Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Cassandra Kelly as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Frances L. Bush, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Marcia Fitz as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Winifred Fitz, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Andre Long as Administrator and Administrator Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Juanita Long, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Phyllis Long as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Deloris Long, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Daphne Cook as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Madeline Higgins, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Vernon N. Stewart as Administrator and Administrator Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Vivian N. Stewart, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Doris Simmons as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Fannie B. Sullen, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Karen James as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Juanita L. James, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Rochelle James, et al., Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Amalia Schlueter as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Caroline Genito, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Rosie Robinson as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Arthur James Anderson, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Henry Thomas as Administrator and Administrator Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Nellie Long Thomas, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Doris King as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Mary Ratliff, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Sheli Hughes as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Marjorie Brown–Sampson, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Pamela Higgins as Administratrix and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of George Higgins, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Samantha Taylor as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Janice M. Peterson, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. William Terrell as Administrator, and Administrator Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Willie W. Terrell, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Lisa Sanders–Ali as Administratrix and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Janisse Welch, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Georgette Greene as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Georgianna Jenkins, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Adrienne Jenkins as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Margaret Simonson, Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. Terry Tinley as Administratrix and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Lewis Tinley, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants. |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 11–6055 (FLW).,Civil Action No. 11–6043 (FLW).,Civil Action No. 12–5793(FLW).,Civil Action No. 11–6047 (FLW).,Civil Action No. 12–5796(FLW).,Civil Action No. 12–3537(FLW).,Civil Action No. 12–3548(FLW).,Civil Action No. 12–3547(FLW).,Civil Action No. 12–3543(FLW).,Civil Action No. 12–3535(FLW).,Civil Action No. 12–3538(FLW).,Civil Action No. 12–3551(FLW).,Civil Action No. 12–3542(FLW).,Civil Action No. 11–6045 (FLW).,Civil Action No. 12–3533(FLW).,Civil Action No. 11–6048 (FLW).,Civil Action No. 11–6053 (FLW).,Civil Action No. 12–3553(FLW).,Civil Action No. 12–3534(FLW).,Civil Action No. 12–5774(FLW).,Civil Action No. 11–6059 (FLW).,Civil Action No. 12–3536(FLW).,Civil Action No. 12–3550(FLW).,Civil Action No. 11–6051 (FLW). |
| Decision Date | 15 February 2013 |
926 F.Supp.2d 538
Cynthia FUQUA as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Annie R. Fuqua, Plaintiff,
v.
BRISTOL–MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
Sharon Gibson as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Eddie Gibson, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Deloris Page as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Chester T. Page, Sr., Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Cassandra Kelly as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Frances L. Bush, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Marcia Fitz as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Winifred Fitz, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Andre Long as Administrator and Administrator Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Juanita Long, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Phyllis Long as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Deloris Long, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Daphne Cook as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Madeline Higgins, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Vernon N. Stewart as Administrator and Administrator Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Vivian N. Stewart, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Doris Simmons as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Fannie B. Sullen, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Karen James as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Juanita L. James, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Rochelle James, et al., Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Amalia Schlueter as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Caroline Genito, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Rosie Robinson as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Arthur James Anderson, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Henry Thomas as Administrator and Administrator Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Nellie Long Thomas, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Doris King as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Mary Ratliff, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Sheli Hughes as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Marjorie Brown–Sampson, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Pamela Higgins as Administratrix and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of George Higgins, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Samantha Taylor as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Janice M. Peterson, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
William Terrell as Administrator, and Administrator Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Willie W. Terrell, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Lisa Sanders–Ali as Administratrix and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Janisse Welch, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Georgette Greene as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Georgianna Jenkins, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Adrienne Jenkins as Administratrix, and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Margaret Simonson, Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Terry Tinley as Administratrix and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of The Estate of Lewis Tinley, Jr., Plaintiff,
v.
Bristol–Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action Nos. 11–6043 (FLW), 11–6045(FLW), 11–6047(FLW), 11–6048(FLW), 11–6051(FLW), 11–6053(FLW), 11–6055(FLW), 11–6059(FLW), 12–3533(FLW), 12–3534(FLW), 12–3535(FLW), 12–3536(FLW), 12–3537(FLW), 12–3543(FLW), 12–3538(FLW), 12–3542(FLW), 12–3547(FLW), 12–3548(FLW), 12–3550(FLW), 12–3551(FLW), 12–3553(FLW), 12–5774(FLW), 12–5793(FLW), 12–5796(FLW).
United States District Court,
D. New Jersey.
Feb. 15, 2013.
[926 F.Supp.2d 541]
Martin P. Schrama, Stark & Stark, PC, Lawrenceville, NJ, Elizabeth H. Hamlin, Garrity, Graham, Favetta, & Flinn, Montclair, NJ, Kevin M. Hart, Stark & Stark, PC, Princeton, NJ, for Plaintiffs.
David L. Harris, Nicole Bearce Albano, Gavin J. Rooney, Lowenstein Sandler, PC, Roseland, NJ, for Defendants.
WOLFSON, District Judge:
The above-captioned matters are toxic tort actions brought by administrators or administratrices on behalf of the respective decedents (collectively “Plaintiffs”), against Defendant Bristol–Myers Squibb Co. (“BMS” or “Defendant”). Defendant timely removed these cases from state court, where a parallel mass tort litigation is pending.1 In these federal actions, Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, pecuniary losses that allegedly arose from the decedents' exposure to, and death from, toxic substances emitted from a BMS facility located in New Brunswick, New Jersey, pursuant to the New Jersey Wrongful Death Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:31–1 et seq. Here, Defendant moves to dismiss those claims for failure to comply with the Act's applicable two-year statute of limitations. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant's motions are GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' wrongful death claims are dismissed without prejudice.
[926 F.Supp.2d 542]
For the purposes of these motions, the Court need not recount facts regarding each of the plaintiffs; rather, a brief recitation of the procedural history will suffice. In and around May 2008, Plaintiffs' counsel filed more than a hundred identical complaints in New Jersey state court against BMS alleging exposure to harmful chemicals from BMS's New Brunswick plant. More recently, Plaintiffs' counsel began filing more complaints in state court, which were then removed by Defendant. Included in those complaints are the wrongful death claims asserted by Plaintiffs in these matters.
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that decedents, who were living in close proximity to BMS's facility in New Brunswick, New Jersey, suffered fatal bodily injuries and illnesses as a result of their alleged exposure to toxic substances emitted from the facility. See Third Amended Master Complaint (the “Complaint”), ¶¶ 5, 19. In addition to other survivorship claims—which are not the subject of Defendant's motion to dismiss—Plaintiffs brought wrongful death claims on behalf of the heirs-at-law, who allege that they were dependent upon the respective decedents and sustained pecuniary losses as a result of their deaths. See Compl., ¶¶ 111–112. It is not disputed that all the wrongful death claims in these twenty-four actions were filed more than two years after the death of each decedent.
Consequently, Defendant posits that Plaintiffs should be time barred from bringing such claims. In that connection, Defendant submits that the discovery rule principles do not apply to toll the limitations provision for wrongful death claims. In response, Plaintiffs maintain that the discovery rule and other principles of equitable tolling are applicable to save their otherwise untimely claims.
2. State Court ActionsThis is not the first time that the parties have brought this issue to a court. In the parallel state mass tort actions, Defendant had moved, in late 2008, to dismiss similar wrongful death claims brought by state plaintiffs based on the same statute of limitations grounds. Likewise, those plaintiffs raised substantially similar discovery rule and equitable arguments as do Plaintiffs in this case.2 The state court (the “State Court”) rendered a written opinion on the dispute.
On the issue of whether the Wrongful Death Act's statute of limitations can be tolled by the discovery rule, the State Court, having conducted a review of the relevant case law, held that the Supreme Court of New Jersey “may be inclined” to apply discovery rule for tolling purposes. See In re Bristol–Myers Squibb Env. Contamination Litig., No. 281, slip op. at 6 (N.J.Super. Ct. Law Div. Jan. 28, 2009) (“ In re Bristol–Myers ”). The State Court also went on to hold that equitable tolling may be appropriate in situations when “the complainant has been induced or tricked by his [or her] adversary's misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass.” Id. at 7 (citations and internal quotations omitted). Ultimately, resting its decision on a theory of fraudulent concealment, the State Court found that if there is any evidence—revealed during discovery—that “the defendant behaved in such a way to prevent plaintiff from ascertaining [its] identity [in order to bring wrongful death claims],” equitable tolling would be appropriate. Id. at pp. 7–8. In that connection, the court refused to dismiss the state plaintiffs' wrongful death claims without
[926 F.Supp.2d 543]
first affording plaintiffs an opportunity to take discovery to explore their equitable defenses to the statute of limitations bar.
On the motions before this Court, Defendant asks me to revisit the statute of limitations question. More specifically, the relevant inquiry here is whether the discovery rule or any other equitable principles should apply to toll the statute of limitations for these Plaintiffs who have waited many years long after the statute of limitations has run to bring their wrongful death claims.
When reviewing a motion to dismiss on the pleadings, courts “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir.2008) (citation and quotations omitted). In Bell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Lamictal Indirect Purchaser & Antitrust Consumer Litig., Civ. No. 12-5120 (WHW)(CLW)
...of the fraudulent concealment with the particularity required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Fuqua v. Bristol – Myers Squibb Co. , 926 F.Supp.2d 538, 549 (D.N.J.2013) (citing Kontonotas v. Hygrosol Pharm. Corp. , 424 Fed.Appx. 184, 187 (3d Cir.2011) ). Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) requires that “[i]n all......
-
Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co., Civil No. 15-5243 (JBS/AMD)
...of course, that fraud, and thus fraudulent concealment, must be pleaded with particularity."); Fuqua v. Bristol – Myers Squibb Co. , 926 F.Supp.2d 538, 549 (D.N.J.2013).The Court agrees with Defendant that this claim must be dismissed. A claim for fraudulent concealment based on either an a......
-
Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co., Civil No. 15-5243 (JBS/AMD)
...of course, that fraud, and thus fraudulent concealment, must be pleaded with particularity."); Fuqua v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 926 F. Supp. 2d 538, 549 (D.N.J. 2013). The Court agrees with Defendant that this claim must be dismissed. A claim for fraudulent concealment based on either an ......
-
Cotton v. Senior Planning Servs., Civil Action No.: 19-8921 (FLW)
...Cotton's spend-down analysis is necessary in order to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s exacting standards. See Fuqua v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 926 F. Supp. 2d 538, 550 (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2013) (noting that Rule 9(b) precludes a litigant from alleging "conclusory, generalized facts"); In re Catanella & ......
-
In re Lamictal Indirect Purchaser & Antitrust Consumer Litig., Civ. No. 12-5120 (WHW)(CLW)
...of the fraudulent concealment with the particularity required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Fuqua v. Bristol – Myers Squibb Co. , 926 F.Supp.2d 538, 549 (D.N.J.2013) (citing Kontonotas v. Hygrosol Pharm. Corp. , 424 Fed.Appx. 184, 187 (3d Cir.2011) ). Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) requires that “[i]n all......
-
Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co., Civil No. 15-5243 (JBS/AMD)
...of course, that fraud, and thus fraudulent concealment, must be pleaded with particularity."); Fuqua v. Bristol – Myers Squibb Co. , 926 F.Supp.2d 538, 549 (D.N.J.2013).The Court agrees with Defendant that this claim must be dismissed. A claim for fraudulent concealment based on either an a......
-
Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co., Civil No. 15-5243 (JBS/AMD)
...of course, that fraud, and thus fraudulent concealment, must be pleaded with particularity."); Fuqua v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 926 F. Supp. 2d 538, 549 (D.N.J. 2013). The Court agrees with Defendant that this claim must be dismissed. A claim for fraudulent concealment based on either an ......
-
Cotton v. Senior Planning Servs., Civil Action No.: 19-8921 (FLW)
...Cotton's spend-down analysis is necessary in order to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s exacting standards. See Fuqua v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 926 F. Supp. 2d 538, 550 (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2013) (noting that Rule 9(b) precludes a litigant from alleging "conclusory, generalized facts"); In re Catanella & ......