Johnson et al v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc. et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Johnson & Johnson's motion to stay (#7) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHERE ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to expedite motion to remand (#23) is DENIED.. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 12/5/17. (MRS)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

AMY JOHNSON, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
vs.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 4:17-CV-2651 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiffs --- 78 in total --- brought this action against defendant Johnson &
Johnson and several others alleging that defendants’ talcum powder products caused
ovarian cancers. Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The
matter was removed by defendants based upon this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
Defendants contend that, although complete diversity does not exist, the non-diverse
plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Numerous motions are pending, including defendant Johnson & Johnson’s motion
to dismiss (#4) and the concurrently-filed motion to stay proceedings pending transfer of
this case to the MDL (#5). Defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc. has also moved to
dismiss (#12) and to transfer venue (#13). Finally, plaintiffs have moved to remand, and
they have also filed a motion to expedite the motion to remand (#17, #23).
In accordance with the practice of this Court for many similarly-situated cases, the
Court will grant the defendant’s motion to stay proceedings. See, e.g., Rea v.
1

Johnson & Johnson, No. 4:16-CV-2165 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.); Gallow v. Johnson &
Johnson, No. 4:16-CV-1123 JAR (E.D. Mo.); Lucas v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 4:16CV-1339 JAR (E.D. Mo.); Starks v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 4:16-CV-1362 AGF (E.D.
Mo.); Frazier v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 4:16-CV-1388 JAR (E.D. Mo.); Eveland v.
Johnson & Johnson, No. 4:16-CV-1436 JAR (E.D. Mo.). As a result, the Court will deny
the plaintiffs’ motion to expedite the motion to remand.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Johnson & Johnson’s motion to stay
(#7) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHERE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to expedite motion to
remand (#23) is DENIED.

Dated this 5th day of December, 2017.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2