Anderson v. Johnson & Johnson (2020)

Our plain-English summary of Anderson v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, May 28, 2020).

Gary, Judy and Wayne Anderson sued Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. in a wrongful death action over Joanne Anderson's mesothelioma and her death on March 22, 2019. Earlier, Joanne Anderson and her husband Gary had won a jury verdict and judgment in a California state court personal injury case, which was on appeal in the California Court of Appeal. The wrongful death case was filed in state court on March 20, 2020, and the defendants removed it to federal court. The court had refused the parties' request to stay the case until the state appeal ended, and instead asked them to dismiss it without prejudice and sign a tolling agreement. The parties did so. The limitations period for the wrongful death claims would have run out on March 22, 2020, so they agreed that claims could be filed again within 30 days after the state appeals court issued its remittitur. The court dismissed the case without prejudice, each side bearing its own costs. The opinion does not describe how Mrs. Anderson was exposed to asbestos.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California
• Decided: May 28, 2020
• Docket: Case No. 2:20-cv-03832-JFW (RAOx)
• Stage: Motion to dismiss
• State: California

Outcome. The court approved the parties' stipulation dismissing the wrongful death action against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. without prejudice, with the limitations period tolled until after the state appeal ends.

Issues decided: Wrongful Death and Survival, Statute of Limitations, Trial Procedure and Discovery, Venue, Removal and Transfer.

The people and their exposure

• Joanne Anderson: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Johnson & Johnson (manufacturer)
• Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (manufacturer)

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

GARY ANDERSON, etal., Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, etal., Defendants.

Case No. 2:20-cv-03832-JFW (RAOx).

May 28, 2020.

DATED: May 27, 2020 KING & SPALDING LLP By: /s/ Julia Romano _________________________________ Alexander G. Calfo Julia E. Romano Nicole R. Fukuoka Attorneys for Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON &

JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. DATED: May 27, 2020 SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, PC By: /s/ Stuart Purdy

United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division.

KING & SPALDING LLP ALEXANDER G. CALFO, JULIA E. ROMANO, NICOLE R. FUKUOKA, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.

SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, PC STUART J. PURDY, Long Beach, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs GARY

ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON and WAYNE ANDERSON.

ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE; TOLLING

AGREEMENT

JOHN F. WALTER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Gary Anderson, Judy Anderson and Wayne Anderson ("Plaintiffs") and defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. ("Defendants"), by and through their counsel of record, hereby agree and stipulate as follows:

1. This wrongful death action alleges claims concerning Joanne Anderson's mesothelioma and death. In a similar state court personal injury action filed by Joanne Anderson and husband Gary Anderson, a jury verdict and judgment were entered in favor of Plaintiffs. Now the verdict and judgment is on appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Case No. B292556.

2. Mrs. Anderson died on March 22, 2019.

3. On March 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed this wrongful death action in state court. Defendants removed the case to federal court. On May 14, 2020, the Court denied the parties' stipulation and request to stay this action pending final resolution of the state court appeal and instead requested the parties agree to dismiss the case without prejudice and enter into a tolling agreement.

4. The statute of limitations for any wrongful-death claims, by any of Mrs. Anderson's heirs and/or estate, would have expired March 22, 2020. But the appeal process has not yet finished, and the outcome of the appeal will affect the validity of the wrongful-death claims.

5. To avoid potentially unnecessary litigation regarding any wrongful-death claims by any of Mrs. Anderson's heirs, the statute of limitations for those claims is hereby tolled, as follows: (1) any of the wrongful-death claims asserted in this action may be re-asserted via a new complaint filed and served within 30 days after issuance of the remittitur by the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, in Case No. B292556; and (2) Defendants may file and serve any responsive pleading within 30 days after the receipt of that complaint.

6. Based on the foregoing, the parties hereby stipulate that this action is dismissed without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

_________________________________ Stuart Purdy Attorneys for Plaintiffs GARY ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON and WAYNE ANDERSON

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• California asbestos laws
• California asbestos exposure sites