Johnson & Johnson Reconsider Venue For New Jersey Multicounty Litigation
The pharmaceutical company facing more than 100 lawsuits in New Jersey may change their motion to centralize talcum powder lawsuits that name them as defendants from the Atlantic City Superior Court they originally requested in the light of the plaintiffs agreement to pursue multicounty litigation, though at a different court.
Monday, August 17, 2015 - The court to which more than 100 talcum powder lawsuits in New Jersey will likely be consolidated continues to remain in flux, with defendant Johnson & Johnson considering a change of venue from their original motion to transfer. Johnson & Johnson, which is being sued for the alleged connection between the company's talcum powder products and ovarian cancer, originally filed their motion to transfer the lawsuits into multicounty litigation to the Atlantic City Superior Court before Judge Nelson C. Johnson. They reportedly are reconsidering that decision after plaintiffs agreed to multicounty litigation, but offered a different court before which to centralize the proceedings.
The plaintiffs in the New Jersey talcum powder lawsuits responded to Johnson & Johnson's request for multicounty litigation favorably, however requested that the proceedings be centralized to the Middlesex County Court before Judge Jessica R. Mayer. The plaintiffs claimed that the Middlesex court has a lighter caseload than the Atlantic City Superior Court and would serve the talcum powder lawsuits more efficiently. The Atlantic City Superior Court currently has a docket size of roughly 7,000 cases. The Middlesex County Court has around 2,000 less than that figure with roughly 5,000 cases currently pending on the court's docket.
The claims at the heart of the lawsuits allege that via the regular use of talcum powder products manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, consumers were put at an increased risk of contracting ovarian cancer, which has been connected to talcum powder in a series of studies dating back to the 1970s. Attorneys representing plaintiffs in the talcum powder cancer lawsuits have produced research stemming from more than 20 studies demonstrated a link between talcum powder and an increased risk in ovarian cancer that has been pegged as high as 30 percent.
Plaintiffs have claimed that Johnson & Johnson have been aware of the existence and significance of these studies and chose not to warn consumers of the potential risk regular use of talcum powder could have for women using the product. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs have also alleged that Johnson & Johnson withheld information from consumers in an effort to protect the marketability of their talcum powder products, even if this resulted in their customers being put at a higher risk.
Johnson & Johnson has contended that the risks involved with using their products are small enough to be deemed nonsignificant and believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit. The defense has produced studies that claim the talcum powder products are not closely linked to an increase in the risk of ovarian cancer, although the talcum powder research supporting this view are fewer in quantity compared to those supporting the link produced by the plaintiffs.
More than 700 talcum powder ovarian cancer lawsuits have already been filed nationwide, with most of them based in St. Louis and New Jersey. The lawsuits name Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower-To-Shower as the products connected to an increased risk in ovarian cancer for women. The alternative court that Johnson & Johnson is considering for multicounty litigation in New Jersey has not been publicly identified as of yet, but all of the lawsuits filed in the state are still expected to be centralized before a single judge.
OnderLaw, LLC -