Hannah v. Johnson & Johnson Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 18-5535 (FLW),Civil Action No. 18-1423 (FLW),Civil Action No. 19-9365,Civil Action No. 18-10319,Civil Action No. 18-10320,Civil Action No. 18-17103,Civil Action No. 18-17106,Civil Action No. 18-1422 (FLW),Civil Action No. 18-5534 (FLW),Civil Action No. 19-13476,Civil Action No. 19-5590,Civil Action No. 18-14637 |
| Parties | DAWN HANNAH, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON INC., et al., Defendants. AMY JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON INC., et al., Defendants. MAUREEN KASSIMALI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON INC., et al., Defendants. DARREN CARTWRIGHT, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Patricia Cartwright, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. SHERRON GAVIN, Individually and on Behalf of all Distributees of the Estate of Rosalyn Gavin, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON INC., et al., Defendants. AMANDA REISING, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Christine Reising, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. CYNTHIA GIBSON, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Devin Gibson, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON INC., et al., Defendants. ELEANOR BARSH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. LISA HITTLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON INC., et al., Defendants. TASHAY BENFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON INC., et al., Defendants. LAURA MCCONNELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. CYNTHIA KANNADY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
*NOT FOR PUBLICATION*
:
These matters, twelve of the transferred-member cases in the Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products multidistrict litigation ("MDL"), each come before the Court upon a motion to remand.1 Due to the common legal questions raised onthese motions, and in the interest of efficiently and fairly managing these cases, the Court decides the twelve pending motions in this Omnibus Opinion.
Because the parties' remand arguments also involve their disputes over personal jurisdiction, this Opinion additionally resolves defendant PTI Royston, LLC's ("PTI Royston") pending Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.2 The Opinion further addresses defendant PTI Union, LLC's ("PTI Union") pending Motions to Sever.3
In order to discuss these motions in an organized manner, as fully explained and defined in more detail below, the Court groups the plaintiffs in these twelve cases into the following three classes:
More specifically, "Class One" plaintiffs include all New Jersey and California citizens. "Class Two" plaintiffs consist of the Missouri citizens in Johnson, Kassimali, Gavin, Reising, and Gibson; the Florida citizens in Hittler; the Georgia citizens in Johnson; and Plaintiffs in Hannah, Cartwright, and Barsh. Finally, "Class Three" includes the Missouri citizens in Hittler, Benford, McConnell, and Kannady; the Florida citizens in Johnson; and plaintiffs who are not citizens of California, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, or Missouri in Johnson, Kassimali, Gavin, Reising, Gibson, Hittler, Benford, McConnell, and Kannady.
For the reasons expressed herein, the Court severs the claims of each plaintiff in Class Three and Barsh. Consequently, each of Class Three Plaintiffs and the Barsh Plaintiffs must file separate complaints and shall each proceed under a separate civil action number upon payment of the requisite filing fee. All claims against PTI Royston by the Class Three Plaintiffs are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The claims of those Class Three Plaintiffs who are not citizens of Missouri and do not allege they purchased the products in Missouri are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction as to the Johnson & Johnson Defendants.5 Lastly, all claims of Class One and Class Two Plaintiffs, with the exception of the Barsh Plaintiffs, are remanded to Missouri state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
These cases originated in Missouri state court and were removed by the Johnson & Johnson Defendants to federal court. (See, e.g., Compl. 1, ECF No. 1-2, Johnson, No. 18-1423 (D.N.J. Oct. 30, 2017); Notice of Removal 2, ECF No. 1, Johnson, No. 18-1423 (D.N.J. Oct. 30, 2017).) Thereafter, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred these matters to this Court to be included in MDL No. 2738, In re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation. (See, e.g., Order of MDL Transfer 1, 3, ECF No. 67, Johnson, No. 18-1423 (D.N.J. Feb. 1, 2018).)
Nine of the twelve cases are multi-plaintiff actions, asserted collectively by more than sixty plaintiffs from various states. In total, there are 733 plaintiffs, only 80 of whom claim Missouri citizenship; and 11 out-of-state plaintiffs have alleged that they purchased or applied Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder or Shower to Shower (collectively, "the products") in Missouri.6 The remining 642 plaintiffs, or about 88% of all the plaintiffs that arethe subject of the instant motions to remand, do not allege any connection to Missouri whatsoever.
Plaintiffs' claims center on the alleged link between ovarian cancer and the use of the talc products. Plaintiffs allege that the products contained known carcinogens, such as asbestos, arsenic, and heavy metals, and that they, or the person whose estate they represent, developed cancer as a result of using the products. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants knew of the potential health effects of exposure to the products and mispresented to consumers, regulators, and the scientific and medical communities the contents of, and health hazard posed by, the products.
The Johnson & Johnson Defendants are both New Jersey corporations with their principal places of business in New Jersey. (Defs.' Answer ¶¶ 70, 72, ECF No. 6, Hittler, No. 18-17106 (D.N.J. Aug. 31, 2018).) They are, thus, both New Jersey citizens for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 104 (3d Cir. 2015) . JJCI manufactured and marketed the products. (Defs.' Answer ¶ 73, Hittler, No. 18-17106.)
Imerys, which has filed for bankruptcy, supplied talc for the products manufactured by JJCI. (Id. ¶ 75; Notice of Bankruptcy Proceedings 1, ECF No. 1-6, Kannady, No. 19-13476 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2019).) Imerys is a citizen of Delaware and California. (Imery's Opp'n to Mot. to Remand 3, ECF No. 88, Hittler, No. 18-17106 (D.N.J. Feb. 6, 2019).)7
The PTI Defendants are both Delaware limited liability companies, (Noland Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 1-2, Kannady, No. 19-13476 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2018)), and as such, their citizenship—for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction—is determined by the citizenship of their members, Lincoln Ben. Life Co., 800 F.3d at 105. The sole member of both PTI Defendants is another Delaware limited liability company, Broadview Investments, LLC ("Broadview"). (Noland Decl. ¶ 7, Kannady, No. 19-13476.) Broadview has four members, the Revocable Living Trust of Edward T. Noland, Jr., (the "Revocable Living Trust"), the Edward T. Noland, Jr. Irrevocable Gifting Trust (the "Irrevocable Trust"), the Laura Noland Tarrasch Revocable Trust (the "Revocable Trust"), and the Tarrasch Family Trust (the "Family Trust").8 (Id. ¶ 8.) "[T]he citizenship of a traditional trust is based solely on that of its trustee." GBForefront, L.P. v. Forefront Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 888 F.3d 29, 39 (3d Cir. 2018). Edward Noland, Jr., a citizen of Georgia since 2006, is the sole trustee of the Revocable Living Trust. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 11.) Kimberly Noland, also a citizen of Georgia since 2006, is the sole trustee of the Irrevocable Trust. (Id. ¶ 12.) Grant McKay, a citizen of Florida since 2017, became the sole trustee of the Revocable Trust and the Family Trust on June 6, 2018, and June 11, 2018, respectively. (Tarrasch Decl. ¶¶ 8, 6, ECF No. 1-3, Kannady, No. 19-13476 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2018); Addendum to Tarrasch Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, ECF No. 74-4, Kannady, No. 19-13476 (D.N.J. Dec. 4, 2018).) The parties do not discuss the citizenship of the trustee (or trustees) of the Revocable Trust or the Family Trust before Grant McKay became the sole trustee in 2018, but because neither the Johnson & Johnson Defendants,...
To continue reading
Request your trial