Delaware Court Tosses Out-of-State Talc Lawsuits

Fact-Checked

Editors carefully fact-check all Drugwatch content for accuracy and quality.

Drugwatch has a stringent fact-checking process. It starts with our strict sourcing guidelines.

We only gather information from credible sources. This includes peer-reviewed medical journals, reputable media outlets, government reports, court records and interviews with qualified experts.

Courthouse Columns with The Statue of Justice

A Delaware court has tossed out lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson from non-residents who claimed the company’s talcum powder caused ovarian cancer. There were more than 200 talc cancer lawsuits filed in Delaware, though the exact number of cases affected by the decision was not immediately clear.

Thousands more lawsuits are still pending in other state and federal courts.

The opinion from the Delaware Superior Court said the people filing the lawsuits in that state “hail from all over the country.” Johnson & Johnson argued that the court had no jurisdiction over cases from people who did not live in Delaware.

Judge Charles Butler ruled in favor of Johnson & Johnson.

The decision relied in part on a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that narrows the definition of jurisdiction. People can typically sue a company in the state where the person lives or where the company does business. The ruling narrowed the rules for companies. It effectively requires the court to be in the state where the company is incorporated or headquartered. Johnson & Johnson is both headquartered and incorporated in New Jersey.

J&J, Other Talc Firms Faces Thousands of Suits

As of August 2018, there were 8,683 talcum powder lawsuits over ovarian cancer pending in federal court. The cases were part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in New Jersey. MDLs allow federal courts to combine similar lawsuits from around the country into a single action. This lets the lawsuits move more quickly through the legal process.

Some state courts also combined dozens of state talc cancer lawsuits. Another 500 or more lawsuits are pending in New Jersey, 800 cases are combined in Los Angeles Superior Court and more than 1,700 talc cancer lawsuits have been filed in St. Louis, Missouri.

A week before the Delaware decision, Johnson & Johnson asked the California court to toss out non-resident lawsuits in that state. This summer, a Missouri judge tossed out a $55 million verdict against J&J from 2016. J&J had successfully argued on appeal that the trial should not have taken place in Missouri. The woman who won the verdict was from South Dakota, not Missouri.

Diagnosed with mesothelioma or ovarian cancer after talcum powder use? Get a Free Case Review

Talc Cancer Lawsuits Have Returned Billions in Verdicts

Juries in various talcum powder lawsuits had returned more than $5 billion in verdicts against talc manufacturers as of August 2018. But courts had reduced or tossed out many of the verdicts on appeal.

The largest was a $4.69 billion verdict against Johnson & Johnson in August 2018. The jury awarded the money to 22 women who claimed J&J talc products caused their ovarian cancers.

The verdict included $4.14 billion in the form of punitive damages. Juries can award punitive damages to punish a defendant if it thinks the company behaved particularly badly.

In addition, a lawsuit claiming J&J talc caused mesothelioma went to trial in February 2018. A jury ruled against the company, awarding Stephen Lanzo III and his wife $117 million.

What Happens to the Talc Lawsuits in Delaware?

The Delaware talc lawsuits are not dead. The court only removed Johnson and Johnson as one of the defendants.

The lawsuits name three other companies as co-defendants. These include talc suppliers Imerys Talc and Rio Tinto Minerals. The lawsuits also name Valeant Pharmaceuticals which purchased J&J’s Shower to Shower body powder product line in 2012.

Those three companies are incorporated in Delaware and the state courts have jurisdiction.

  •  
  •  
  •  
Terry Turner
Written By Terry Turner Writer

Terry Turner has been writing articles and producing news broadcasts for more than 25 years. He covers FDA policy, proton pump inhibitors, and medical devices such as hernia mesh, IVC filters, and hip and knee implants. An Emmy-winning journalist, he has reported on health and medical policy issues before Congress, the FDA and other federal agencies. Some of his qualifications include:

  • American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) and The Alliance of Professional Health Advocates member
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Health Literacy certificates
  • Original works published or cited in Washington Examiner, MedPage Today and The New York Times
  • Appeared as an expert panelist on hernia mesh lawsuits on the BBC
Edited By

6 Cited Research Articles

  1. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2018, August 15). MDL Statistics Report. Retrieved from http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-August-15-2018.pdf
  2. Superior Court of the State of Delaware. (2018, September 10). In re: Talc Product Liability Litigation. Retrieved from: https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=278370
  3. Seigal, D. (2018, September 11). Out-of-State J&J Talc Suits Tossed from Delaware Courts. Law360. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/consumerprotection/articles/1081678/out-of-state-j-j-talc-suits-tossed-from-delaware-courts?nl_pk=6e07556a-fd46-4be6-8af2-f9d3466ff930&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=consumerprotection
  4. HarrisMartin Publishing. (2018, September 12). Del. Court Tosses Claims of Non-Resident Talcum Powder Plaintiffs, Says Specific Jurisdiction Lacking. Retrieved from https://harrismartin.com/article/23825/del-court-tosses-claims-of-non-resident-talcum-powder-plaintiffs-says-specific-jurisdiction-lacking/
  5. HarrisMartin Publishing. (2018, September 11). J&J Maintains California Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction Over Non-California Plaintiffs. Retrieved from https://harrismartin.com/article/23819/jj-maintains-calif-court-doesnt-have-jurisdiction-over-non-california-plaintiffs/
  6. Bennett, J. (2017, May 8). More Trouble Ahead for Valeant? Barron’s. Retrieved from https://www.barrons.com/articles/more-trouble-ahead-for-valeant-1494257361
View All Sources
Call to speak with a legal expert
Who Am I Calling?

Calling this number connects you with Wilson and Peterson, LLP or one of its trusted legal partners. A law firm representative will review your case for free.

Wilson and Peterson, LLP funds Drugwatch because it supports the organization’s mission to keep people safe from dangerous drugs and medical devices.

(855) 547-5876