Cartwright et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder in the Motion to Stay All Proceedings by Imerys Talc America, Inc. [ECF No. 47 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Stay [ECF No. 4 ] is GRANTED. This case shall be STAYED pending a decision by the MDL Panel on whether to transfer this case to MDL No. 2738 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that all other pending motions are DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 03/07/2018. (KCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DARREN CARTWRIGHT, Individually and on
Behalf of the Estate of Patricia Cartwright,
Deceased, et al.,
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,
No. 4:17-CV-2851 RLW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This product liability matter is before the Court on numerous motions filed by the parties:
a Motion to Stay all Proceedings by defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Inc. [ECF No. 4]; a Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiffs and a Motion to Expedite
Ruling on Motion to Remand [ECF Nos. 11, 13]; a Motion to Dismiss Case and a Motion to
Sever Claims and Transfer for Improper Venue filed by defendant PTI Union, LLC [ECF Nos.
25, 34]; a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by defendant PTI Royston, LLC [ECF
No. 31]; a Motion for an Extension of Time and a Motion for Hearing filed by Plaintiffs [ECF
Nos. 36, 37]; a Motion for Joinder in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motions filed by PTI Union [ECF
No. 41]; a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, a Motion for Joinder in the Motion to
Stay, a Motion for Joinder in the Motion to Stay Memorandum, and a Motion for Joinder in the
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Hearing, each filed by defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc.
[ECF Nos. 45, 47, 48, and 49]; and Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to
Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 51].
Forty Plaintiffs filed this case in state court, alleging that the use of talc products caused
their ovarian cancer or that of their deceased.
Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Inc. ("the Johnson & Johnson Defendants") removed the case to federal court on the
grounds that diversity of citizenship exists because PTI Union LLC and PTI Royston LLC, the
only Missouri-based defendants, were fraudulently joined in this action because they are immune
from liability to Plaintiffs under the contract specifications defense.
The Johnson and Johnson Defendants seek a stay of this matter pending transfer to the
multidistrict litigation now pending before Judge Freda Wolfson in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey. See In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Mktg., Sales
Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2738. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, and request an
expedited ruling from the Court remanding the case to state court prior to the disposition of the
Motion to Stay. The Court finds that a stay is appropriate in this case and declines to address the
other pending motions.
"A district court has inherent power to stay its proceedings."
GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, No. 4:15CV1397 CDP, 2015 WL 6063926, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 14,
2015) (citation omitted). "In determining whether to stay proceedings, a district court must
exercise judgment by weighing 'competing interests' and maintaining 'an even balance."' Id.
(quoting Bledsoe v. Janssen Pharm., No. 4:05CV02330 ERW, 2006 WL 335450, at *1 (E.D.
Mo. Feb. 13, 2006)). When "considering a motion to stay, a Court should consider both the
interest of judicial economy and the potential prejudice or hardship to the parties." Lafoy v.
Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., No. 4:16CV00466 ERW, 2016 WL 2733161, at *2 (E.D. Mo.
May 11, 2016) (citation omitted).
"However, '[a] putative transferor court need not
automatically postpone rulings on pending motions, or in any way generally suspend
proceedings, merely on grounds that an MDL transfer motion has been filed."'
Fresenius Med Care N Am., Inc., No. 4:13CV00855 CEJ, 2013 WL 2643302, at 1 (E.D. Mo.
June 12, 2013) (quoting T.F. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 4:12CV01221 CDP, 2012 WL 3000229, at *1
(E.D. Mo. July 21, 2012) (internal quotation omitted)).
The Johnson and Johnson Defendants argue that a stay pending transfer would promote
judicial economy and consistency of rulings. Further, they assert that absent a stay, the Court
will waste time supervising pretrial proceedings and ruling on motions in a case that will soon be
transferred to the MDL court. Moreover, they argue they will be significantly prejudiced and
suffer hardship because they would be required to engage in duplicate discovery and motions
practice. In response, Plaintiffs maintain that the removal is "pure gamesmanship" designed to
deprive them of their day in court.
The Court finds that judicial economy weighs heavily in favor of granting a stay in this
matter. "A stay will allow consistent pretrial rulings and conserve the resources of the parties,
counsel, and the judiciary." Simmons, 2015 WL 6063926, at *I. Further, the Court notes that
other recent cases presenting the same claims against the same Defendants addressed the same
stay and remand issues.
In those cases, the district judges stayed the proceedings pending
transfer to the MDL panel. See Johnson v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 4:17-CV-2651 SNLJ (E.D.
Mo. Dec. 5, 2017); Jinright v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 4:17CV01849 ERW (E.D. Mo. Aug. 30,
2017); McBee v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 4:17-CV-01496 JAR (E.D. Mo. June 9, 2017); Rice v.
Johnson & Johnson, No. 4:17-CV-01224-CDP (E.D. Mo.); Ghormley v. Johnson & Johnson,
No. 4:17-CV-00585 (CEJ) (E.D. Mo. Apr. 27, 2017); Rea v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 4:16-CV-
2165 SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Feb. 22, 2017). The Court finds no reason to depart from these cases.
Therefore, the Court will grant the Johnson and Johnson Defendants' motion to stay all
proceedings in this matter pending transfer to the MDL court. The Court notes that Plaintiffs
will have a full and fair opportunity to present their arguments for remand to the MDL court
should the case be transferred to MDL No. 2738.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder in the Motion to Stay All
Proceedings by Imerys Talc America, Inc. [ECF No. 47] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Stay [ECF No. 4] is GRANTED. This
case shall be STAYED pending a decision by the MDL Panel on whether to transfer this case to
MDL No. 2738 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that all other pending motions are DENIED without
~ day of March, 2018.
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?