Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, JURISDICTION—HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS—D. N.J.: Claims alleging link between cancer and J&J talcum products dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, (Feb 13, 2024)

By Glenn Sulzer. J.D.

The nonresident plaintiffs failed to establish that Rhode Island courts had general or specific personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant corporation that did business in the state but was not incorporated in the state.

Claims brought in Rhode Island state court by nonresident plaintiffs, alleging that the talcum powder contained in products manufactured, marketed, and distributed by Johnson & Johnson caused ovarian cancer, were dismissed by a federal court in New Jersey for lack of general or specific personal jurisdiction. The court stressed that the company was not incorporated in Rhode Island and did not maintain its principal place of business in the state. Moreover, the plaintiffs did not purchase the products in Rhode Island or otherwise establish the required affiliation between the state and the allegations (DiCarlo v. Johnson & Johnson, February 9, 2024, Shipp, M.).

Background. Individual residents of Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Florida filed separate suits in Rhode Island Superior Court, alleging that the talcum contained in Johnson & Johnson’s “Baby Powder” and “Shower to Shower” products caused their ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson (J & J) is incorporated under the laws of New Jersey and maintains a principal place of business in New Jersey. However, the company also distributes, sells, and markets the products in Rhode Island, is registered with the Rhode Island Secretary of State, and has a registered agent in Rhode Island.

During the class period, J & J sold its products in Rhode Island. Significantly, however, the plaintiffs did not specifically claim to have purchased or otherwise used the products in Rhode Island.

The plaintiffs’ complaints state twelve wide ranging claims against J & J, broadly alleging negligence; strict product liability (defective design); failure to warn; Rhode Island deceptive trade practices; and other charges. The company moved to dismiss all plaintiffs’ claims for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of transferee court. Initially, the New Jersey federal court explained that, in a multidistrict litigation proceeding, the transferee court may only exercise personal jurisdiction to the same extent that jurisdiction could be exercised by the transferor court. Thus, because the plaintiffs originally filed their complaints in Rhode Island, the New Jersey federal court could exercise personal jurisdiction only to the same extent that jurisdiction could be exercised by a Rhode Island court. The court concluded that Rhode Island courts could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the company.

General personal jurisdiction. In order to establish general personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant is essentially “at home” in the state in which the lawsuit is filed. Generally, a corporate defendant is considered “at home” in the state in which it is incorporated and maintains its principal place of business. As the plaintiffs did not allege that the company is incorporated in Rhode Island or maintains its principal place of business in the state, they could not make a prima facie case that Rhode Island courts have general jurisdiction over the company.

Specific personal jurisdiction. A court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporate defendant if there is an “affiliation” between the state forum and the underlying controversy, such as activity or an occurrence that takes place in the state. The plaintiffs averred that Rhode Island courts have specific jurisdiction over J & J because it is registered in Rhode Island, does business in Rhode Island, and has purposefully availed itself of the state through the distribution, advertisement, and sale of the products in the state.

In rejecting the argument, the court stressed that none of the plaintiffs alleged that they had purchased the products in Rhode Island, been harmed by the products in Rhode Island, or ever been to the state. Accordingly, the court reasoned, the plaintiffs could not reasonably allege that J & J ever distributed, advertised, or attempted to sell them the products in Rhode Island, because they did not charge anything to suggest they had any affiliation with the state.

Long-arm statute. As a final argument, the plaintiffs contended that the Rhode Island courts had personal jurisdiction over J & J under Rhode Island’s long-arm statute. The statute authorizes state court jurisdiction over nonresident defendants that have the “necessary minimum contacts” with the state in every case “not contrary to the provisions of the [C]onstitution or laws of the United States.”

The court concluded that the long-arm statute was inapplicable, reasoning that a finding of personal jurisdiction over the company after the plaintiffs failed to show general or specific jurisdiction in Rhode Island would be contrary to the provisions of the Constitution (Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment) or laws of the United States.

Dismissal of claims. As each plaintiff’s complaint was filed in Rhode Island, the lack of personal jurisdiction in the Rhode Island courts was fatal to the claims. Therefore, the federal court dismissed each claim.

The case is No. 17-5847 (MAS) (RLS).

Attorneys: Donald A. Migliori (Motley Rice LLC) for Jacky A. Vient. Gene M. Williams (Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP) for Johnson & Johnson.

Companies: Johnson & Johnson

Cases: CourtDecisions JurisdictionNews HouseholdProductsNews NewJerseyNews