ST. LOUIS – A federal judge in St. Louis refused to dismiss a lawsuit alleging a link between Johnson & Johnson products and mesothelioma.
In a March 15 ruling, District Judge Ronnie White at the Eastern District of Missouri ruled in favor of Shawnee Douglas, who alleged her malignant peritoneal mesothelioma resulted from exposure to asbestos in talc-based products from Johnson & Johnson. The company sought to dismiss the case, arguing improper venue or alternatively to transfer, which White denied.
Douglas also named as defendants Imerys Talc America, Luzenac American, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and PTI Union.
Johnson filed her complaint in state court - alleging strict liability, negligence, willful and wanton misconduct and conspiracy - but Johnson & Johnson removed it to federal court, saying the only defendant based in Missouri, PTI Union, was “fraudulently joined” to the lawsuit.
On Feb. 14, White denied Douglas’ motion to remand and granted PTI Union’s motion to dismiss itself from the complaint. White stayed the case on Feb. 25 when Imerys filed a notice of pending bankruptcy. On March 4, Douglas moved to dismiss only Imerys, without prejudice, allowing the case to proceed.
According to White, Johnson & Johnson's improper venue argument stated the defendant is not based in Missouri and that Douglas didn’t use the talc-based products while living in Missouri. Alternatively, the company suggested transferring the case to the Eastern District of Tennessee, where Douglas previously dismissed claims against Johnson & Johnson and Imerys after a complaint was removed from Tennessee state court, the order states.
Douglas said federal court in Missouri is proper because she initially filed her lawsuit in the 22nd Judicial Circuit, which also includes St. Louis, and where the federal court is situated.
“Precedent clearly supports (Douglas’) position,” White wrote, pointing to a 1953 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines and its position on venue on removed actions, specifically the removal of state court actions to the district court in the same geographic area.
He likewise cited a 2013 opinion in the Western District of Missouri regarding Schoberlein v. Westrux International, in which that court held that “when a case has been removed to the district court for the area in which the state action was pending … venue in the federal court is proper and not ‘wrong.’”
Although there are federal law provisions for convenience of parties and witnesses, or in the interest of justice, Johnson & Johnson didn’t base its argument or subsequent filings on those clauses. Because the company argued on another aspect of the law, White said, it wasn’t allowed to make new arguments in a reply memorandum.