Talcum Powder Case Ends in Mistrial After Controversial Supreme Court Ruling on State Court Litigation

Mid-way through a state court talcum powder trial in St. Louis, a mistrial was declared based on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling yesterday, which may have widespread ramifications on the ability of consumers to pursue product liability lawsuits outside of the state where the manufacturer is based, or the state where the product was purchased and used.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion (PDF) on Monday, finding that the manufacturer of Plavix can not be sued in California state court by individuals who reside outside of the state, and did not purchase or consume the medication in California, since Bristol-Myers Squibb is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York.

The immediate effect of the ruling means that hundreds of out-of-state plaintiffs who filed Plavix lawsuits in California state court, will likely see their cases dismissed. However, it will also likely have a wide-reaching impact on other state court litigation involving mass tort claims.

Learn More About

Talcum Powder Lawsuits

Talcum powder or talc powder may cause women to develop ovarian cancer.

Learn More About this Lawsuit See If You Qualify For Compensation

Shortly after the ruling was announced, a Missouri state court judge grant the mistrial in a bellwether trial was underway in St. Louis, which involved out-of-state plaintiffs who alleged that Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn that exposure to talcum powder for feminine hygiene purposes may lead to the development of ovarian cancer.

There are currently several thousand Baby Powder lawsuits and Shower-to-Shower lawsuits pending against Johnson & Johnson in Missouri, many involving women who purchased and used the talcum powder products outside of the state. The decision to grant a mistrial raises questions about the future of those Missouri state court claims, since Johnson & Johnson is not headquartered in the state.

Several prior verdicts, in which juries ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay massive damage awards as a result of the failure to warn about the ovarian cancer risk may also be in jeopardy as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Missouri, California and several other states have previously allowed non-resident plaintiffs to file claims in their state court system, finding that if a company does business in their state, it is enough of a connection to allow a plaintiff to file a complaint in that state, regardless of where that plaintiff is from or where the company is located.

In an 8-1 opinion, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that allowing such nonresidents’ claims would violate the due process clause. While concerns have been expressed that such a ruling would severely restrict the ability of consumers to consolidate claims and pool resources against powerful multi-billion dollar companies, Judge Alito indicated that those fears are overblown.

“Our straightforward application in this case of settled principles of personal jurisdiction will not result in the parade of horribles that respondents conjure up,” he wrote. “Our decision does not prevent the California and out-of-state plaintiffs from joining together in a consolidated action in the States that have general jurisdiction over (Bristol-Myers Squibb).”

Justice Alito also noted that multiple plaintiffs could band together and file in their home states, where they would still have standing.

The consequences of the ruling will be substantial, and the full extent of the impact will likely be the subject of much debate in state courts over the coming months.


Share Your Comments

I authorize the above comments be posted on this page*

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

More Top Stories

Johnson & Johnson Faces Medical Monitoring Lawsuit Over Future Baby Powder Cancer Risks
Johnson & Johnson Faces Medical Monitoring Lawsuit Over Future Baby Powder Cancer Risks (Posted today)

Women who used Johnson's Baby Powder around their genitals for feminine hygiene purposes now live in fear of developing ovarian cancer, according to the class action lawsuit seeking medical monitoring for future diagnoses

More Than 9,600 Join Suboxone Lawsuit Over Tooth Decay in MDL Filing
More Than 9,600 Join Suboxone Lawsuit Over Tooth Decay in MDL Filing (Posted yesterday)

A bundled complaint of about 9,600 Suboxone lawsuits were filed in federal court on Friday, ahead of the two-year anniversary of the FDA requiring tooth decay label warnings on the opioid treatment film strips, which is also a deadline for filing a civil complaint in many states.