Author Archives: Timothy C. Connor

Johnson & Johnson Found Not Liable in California Talcum Trial Los Angeles County Superior Court, November 16, 2017

After almost three days of deliberation following a four week trial, a Los Angeles area jury reached a defense verdict in a mesothelioma case against Johnson & Johnson and its supplier Imerys Talc America, Inc. In closing arguments, the plaintiff urged the jury to consider evidence that allegedly documented Johnson & Johnson’s long awareness of asbestos contamination in its talc mines in attributing the plaintiff’s disease to the defendants. Defense arguments focused on a lack of asbestos markers in the plaintiff’s lungs, and pointed to…

Continue Reading....

Defendant’s Third-Party Claims Remain Stayed in Federal Court While Plaintiff’s State Law Claims Remanded United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, October 24, 2017

MARYLAND — The plaintiff filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, MD alleging state law claims arising from asbestos exposure against defendant/appellant Campbell-McCormick (CMC) and others. CMC subsequently filed a third-party complaint against GE and 12 other co-defendants for contribution. GE removed the case to the District of Maryland, asserting federal contractor defenses. The plaintiff filed a motion to sever and remand, and specifically requested the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to…

Continue Reading....

Fraudulent Joinder Determination Turns Only on Factual and Legal Basis, Not Intent U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central Division, October 3, 2017

MISSOURI — Kansas resident plaintiffs filed an action in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, alleging mesothelioma and asbestosis arising out of work first performed in the state of Missouri. Two defendants named in the state court petition were also residents of Kansas, and the rest were from various states. Defendant Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company removed the case on the basis of diversity. In response to the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, Athene alleged that the plaintiffs had no intention of prosecuting claims…

Continue Reading....