September 13, 2018
On September 10, 2018, Judge Charles Butler of the Delaware Superior Court held that the Court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident plaintiffs in talc cases.As a result, certain lawsuits were dismissed wherein the out-of-state plaintiffs alleged Johnson & Johnson talcum powder products caused ovarian cancer. Judge Butler’s ruling is in line with last summer’s United States Supreme Court ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court in California. The Supreme Court, in Bristol-Myers, found that non-California residents could not join a California state court action against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. over the blood thinner Plavix.
Specifically, Judge Butler found that the Court only had jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by Delaware residents. Further, the Court lacked jurisdiction as Johnson & Johnson is neither incorporated nor based in Delaware. Per this decision, the mere fact that Johnson & Johnson sells talc and creates other subsidiaries in Delaware does not confer jurisdiction over it in Delaware. Even though Johnson & Johnson may have marketed and sold talc in Delaware, Judge Butler noted that the nonresident plaintiffs were presumably the subject of marketing and sales conduct in their respective states and not subject of the Delaware efforts. Additionally, Judge Butler granted Johnson & Johnson’s request to prohibit the plaintiffs from undergoing additional discovery to ascertain potential links between Johnson & Johnson and Delaware which could confer jurisdiction.
This decision signifies another example of continuing litigation in the realm of personal jurisdiction which is occurring across the United States. The attorneys at McGivney, Kluger, Clark & Intoccia will continue to monitor this evolving issue as the case law develops.