Pa. Courts Allowed To Have Jurisdiction in Talcum Case

Pa. Courts Allowed To Have Jurisdiction in Talcum Case

Introduction

According to the January 16 ruling of a federal judge, Pennsylvania courts can now have jurisdiction over talcum powder lawsuits since the defendant followed state law while registering to do business in the state.

In the opinion submitted, Judge Michael M. Baylson denied Imerys Talc America's motion to dismiss a plaintiff's case on jurisdiction grounds. The parties involved in the litigation argued about Pennsylvania’s law for companies registered to do business in the state, which is in contradiction with a recent U.S. Supreme Court's decision governing legal jurisdiction for companies having headquarters in other states. Imerys is a Delaware-based company having its headquarters in Roswell, Georgia, and San Jose, California and argued that the business registration for Pennsylvania was its only contact and did not create jurisdiction. The plaintiff stated in her lawsuit that she was diagnosed with papillary mesothelioma on November 13, 2015, and it was only in May 2018 that she learned that her exposure to talcum powder contaminated with asbestos was the reason for her condition. Charges of strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and misrepresentation were filed against the defendants; additionally, a loss of consortium claim was asserted by her husband.

More than 1,000 lawsuits are pending against Johnson & Johnson and its talc supplier, which are centralized for pretrial proceedings in the District of New Jersey, presided over by Hon. Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J./ Hon. Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J. as a part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2738; In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation).